"pros and cons" of gun ownership

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

... What does the fact that most guns in NYC come from certain states show you?

It strongly indicates the need for a single, uniform, rational, _national_ gun control law!

 

Criminals, by their nature, will break the law to get what they need. If we outlawed guns nationally, the crimanls would go to Mexico or some other country to get them.

Note the use of the words "single", "uniform", "rational", "national", "gun", "control", "law" in the sentence above. Mix 'em, match 'em, put 'em in almost any order, and they address this and most every NRA-sponsored propaganda "issue/objection" you can think of.

 

Then what would happen? The guy who owns a restaurant and is trying to feed his family is gonna get robbed, and he's gonna lose his entire life savings because he couldn't protect HIS PROPERTY.

Remember: We're trying imagine a more civilized America, where (among other things) the police aren't corrupt and (more to the point) are properly trained and funded so they can keep us safe. In the meantime, every Tom, Dick and Jose owing a gun just makes us much, much less safe.

 

Address the root of the problem, and laws wont be needed.

There's that thinly-veiled code language again. Come'on now, just come right out and say it!

 

In the 40s, 50s, and 60s we didn't need gun control laws. Crime rates were low. I find it a little odd that as the above mentioned problems start taking hold in our cities, the more of a problem the crime rate became.

So what was it that "started" it exactly? "Immigrants" entering the middle class? "Brown"-skinned people migrating north from the southern states? Poor single-parent families struggling to survive? Hippies becoming Yuppies? Americans demanding more sex in their popular culture? French cooking classes on public TV?

 

Stop beating around the bush, man. Tells us who you really think is the one true citizen, the one true believer, the one true American?

 

I _know_ I don't know crap, but I also don't think I should own a gun to "protect" my beliefs (e.g.: threaten you).

 

Why is it often the case that the most righteous believe they require the most power to encourage (enforce) their beliefs?

 

Why do you personally need a gun to do it?

 

Why isn't just saying "the word" good enough?

[VincentD.]

""As usual", you forget that at least two of the people participating in this discussion describe themselves as LIBERAL gun-supporters/owners.

What, no mention of the thousands of accidental injuries and deaths caused annually by "law-abiding" citizens?"

 

Hate to break it to you, but politics are never black and white. Just because somebody is a liberal on most issues, doesn't make them a liberal on every issue. Since we are talking about gun control here, the liberals would be the ones who support it, and the conservatives the ones who are against it. These are the general terms used in most of the world today, which is why I'm using them for this discussion. You can be a "liberal gun supporter", but on this issue, you would be considered conservative. I suppose a "liberal gun supporter" would probably be looked at as more of a moderate by most.

 

Let me get this straight, your saying since guns may accidentally kill innocent people, we should outlaw them? If that's the case, why don't we outlaw kitchen knives, or theme park rides, or cars!

 

 

"So, wait, the rest of us should own guns because our culture encourages stupid or unhealthy or dangerous behaviour?"

 

Basically. We have to protect ourselves somehow. Besides, even if there were gun contro laws, im not going to entrust that great organization known as the LAPD to enforce them.

 

""Villanizes"? Wow, you think WalMart, CocaCola, General Motors, Exon, et al _villanize_ "people of faith"? After all, these are the big corporations who _pay_ for most popular culture. Why would they try to alienate/victimize the majority of their customers? You do understand that most Americans consider themselves "religious" or "church going" and such?"

 

No, not any of the companies you mentioned do that, or directly at least. They are smart. On the other hand, you have this undercurrent of popular culture which discourages Christian (and any other world religion for that matter) morality. You can't even go onto the internet without being bombarded with pornography advertisements.

 

"In reality, a whole mess of self-described "religious" types actually _like_ (in a sneaky kind of way) guns-n-tits-n-ass in their culture, otherwise a big chunk of the money that pays for all that junk would disappear overnight. It's just like the "liberals" who support/own gun ownership: They know it's wrong, but they just can't help themselves."

 

Not true at all. Don't look to Rush Limbaugh as the typical Christian please. Some Christians may watch this type of stuff for entertainment, but it's only because they are strong enough in their beliefs not to be influenced by it, or they have this half-assed (don't know any other way to put it lol) idea of religion where it's okay to disregard moral teachings, because you "still believe in God."

 

"If you're looking for scapegoats, instead of picking on "defenseless" low-income single Moms (who in reality could whoop yo' ass in a fair fight), why don't you instead have a long heart-to-heart talk with your porno-buying-gun-pack'n-bible-thump'n brothers and sisters? _That's_ where the money and the power is."

 

I'm not picking on low income single moms. I'm saying that they do not have the resources available to them that a middle class family with 2 parents does. You can say all you want, but statistics show that children born out of wedlock, and/or into a 1 parent home, are more likely to end up in jail and/or commit crimes.

 

"Of course, if you really did this, you might learn that many of them really don't want to give up their violence-and-violent-sex-riddled culture, thank you very much. So _then_ what do you do, have a nervous breakdown? Damn them to eternal hell? Kill them all?"

 

Huh? What gives me the right or the power to damn somebody to eternal hell?

 

"Hint: It's a lot easier to just use the brain She gave you and lighten up. Guns don't kill people; it's people who think guns are AOK who kill people."

 

Exactly. How do people come about with the idea its okay to kill people? When the media glamorizes a criminal, they are sending subliminal messages that that type of behaviour is okay. I'm sure seeing Scarface on DVD when your 13 years old, seeing all the money and power he has, leaves quite an impression.

 

"No, not just more ethical behaviour in what you mean by "inner cities" (code for where "brown"-skinned people live)"

 

I'm wondering why you have to bring race into the issue? Plenty of inner cities have white people living in them. This isn't a race issue. The fact you see it as such shows your level of thinking.

 

", but rather much, MUCH more ethical behaviour in the true centers of power of our cities: Especially, and starting first with the White House, Senate, and House of Representative in Washington, DC ... "

 

Wait a second. If these people are so corrupt, why do you want to entrust the duty of enforcing these gun control laws with them? I agree with you 100%. Politicans are crooks and can't be trusted. The average guy with a family and kids to feed on the other hand, he's the one who can be trusted. Leave it to him to protect his property, not the corrupt L.A.P.D. or some politician in Washington.

 

 

"Sorry, missed this one: Did this get into the US Constitution already? Myself, I'd much rather a single parent love me than have two parents who hate eachother, me, and their miserable lives. Anyone who thinks a single parent can't successfully raise a child in a _civilized_ country has really, really not been paying attention. Notice, I didn't say "in America" -- I can't use "successfully raise a child", "civilized" and "America" in the same sentence. (Whoops, just did ...)"

 

Once again, your not looking at the staistics. It is proven when your born into a 1 parent family, chances are you will commit more crimes than somebody born into a family with 2 parents. You can succesfully raise a child on your own, but it's much harder to do so and sets you back.

 

I think you have a misconception about most parents in America. Of course anybody would rather have 1 parent who loves them than 2 who hate them, but quite honestly how many parents hate their children or abuse them? A very small percentage.

 

"Um, that's one of the things civilized people "gladly" pay taxes for ... so that trained, licensed, and democratically selected professionals can keep criminals in check."

 

But you just got done talking about how corurpt politicians were. I'm confused.

[VincentD.]

"Note the use of the words "single", "uniform", "rational", "national", "gun", "control", "law" in the sentence above. Mix 'em, match 'em, put 'em in almost any order, and they address this and most every NRA-sponsored propaganda "issue/objection" you can think of."

 

Um, because a national gun control law is going to stop people from going to MEXICO to buy them? Also, do you honestly entrust the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to enforce a gun control law in every city in America?

 

"Remember: We're trying imagine a more civilized America, where (among other things) the police aren't corrupt and (more to the point) are properly trained and funded so they can keep us safe. In the meantime, every Tom, Dick and Jose owing a gun just makes us much, much less safe."

 

Problem is, we don't live in a perfect world. Thats the problem with liberals. They always imagine some utopia thats just out of reach. There will always be bad people. There will always be good people. If given equal opportunity, good will always triumph over evil. If however, the good people can't protect themselves beacuse owning a gun is "bad" then the bad people will use this to their advantage and harass the good people. Simple as that really.

 

"There's that thinly-veiled code language again. Come'on now, just come right out and say it!

So what was it that "started" it exactly? "Immigrants" entering the middle class? "Brown"-skinned people migrating north from the southern states? Poor single-parent families struggling to survive? Hippies becoming Yuppies? Americans demanding more sex in their popular culture? French cooking classes on public TV?"

 

Dude, get a grip. You have this pre conceived notion that I must be in the KKK or somthing. If your so worked up about "brown" skinned people maybe you should see a doctor. You seem like you have a phobia.

 

"Stop beating around the bush, man. Tells us who you really think is the one true citizen, the one true believer, the one true American?"

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

 

"Why is it often the case that the most righteous believe they require the most power to encourage (enforce) their beliefs?"

 

I'm not enforcing my beliefs. I'm defending them. This country was FOUNDED on these beliefs, if you don't like it you can move.

 

"Why do you personally need a gun to do it?"

 

Because Joe Crack Dealer on the corner has one. Who, I might add, probably came from a single parent home, and was probably shown Scarface by an older cuosin or other father figure (who was probably in his mid teens) and told thats the type of guy you gotta aspire to be.

[Alex Ellerman]

Again let's review:

 

Canada: Strict gun laws, low crime.

 

USA: Liberal gun laws, high crime.

 

R,

 

Talk about specious arguments and slippery slopes... Richard, don't they teach anything up there in those peaceful Canadian schools? Just because there's violence here doesn't mean that it has a direct correlation to our right to bear arms... it's contraindicated by myriad issues, from race, to class, to population density...

 

I believe in the right to bear arms because it is a litmus test for the rights of the individual, ie, I believe that there should not be illegal search and seizure, there should be warrants for eavesdropping, etc. etc. etc.

I am not a big fan of the current administrations attempts to get rid of any and all executive oversight.

ae

[Alessandro Machi]

That's not very many at all. Especially since you're talking pragmatics. If you're talking sentimentality that's a different issue, but 14,000 is just not very many people. You're saying Americans can choose to own guns, and the freedom to make that choice results in 14,000 deaths each year. We can also choose to start smoking, and the freedom to make that choice results in 400,000+ deaths per year in the US. Would you deny a person the right to smoke? If you're talking pragmatics, you cannot deny a person the right to own a firearm and not deny a person the right to smoke.

 

It's not quite the same thing because a gun usually kills someone else whereas the smoker usually kills themselves. Although second hand smoke has taken center stage lately as well.

 

 

I think 14,000 gun deaths per year is huge. That's 1.6 deaths per hour, every hour of every day. That is significant. However, I feel that our current president is so beholden to special interest groups that if the citizens of this country didn't own guns, the level of overt pompousness he regularly displays would increase by leaps and bounds. I've never once heard President Bush criticize a U.S. corporation.

 

I never thought I'd experience a president such as Bush who has been so bought out that I would feel safer knowing the community at large had guns, unreal.

[Guest]

"Talk about specious arguments and slippery slopes... Richard, don't they teach anything up there in those peaceful Canadian schools? Just because there's violence here doesn't mean that it has a direct correlation to our right to bear arms... it's contraindicated by myriad issues, from race, to class, to population density..."

 

Yes they teach us a lot actually. Believe it or not I went to the most Republican university on planet earth, BYU. So all I heard for four years was Reagan this and Bush Sr that. Not too mention a hefty dose of, "God Guns and Guts" made America great. So I've lived in your gun culture and seen both sides.

 

Thankfully Canada has made the right choice on this issue, and my children can grow up in virtual peace. Without fear of some teen idiot bringing a gun to school and shooting up the place.

 

So if I can re-cap some of the earlier posts commenting on my comments. America has issues with racism, drugs, and poverty, so this produces high crime areas. And apparently flooding these zones with guns has nothing to do with the shootings that occur there daily?

 

Do I have it right?

 

R,

[timHealy]

"heel, just because somebody belongs to a certain party doesn't make them "conservative" or "liberal". "

 

But 9 times out of 10 it is fairly reliable. But you were the one to use the "liberal" in blantant sentences like "Thats the problem with liberals" and "As is usually the case, the liberals here aren't using LOGIC".

 

"Neither Giuliani or Bloomberg would be considered conservative when it comes to the gun control issue, and certain other issues too."

 

Well no kidding, that's why I chose them as well known republicans and being generally conserative.

 

"Also, nothing you said refuted my "root of the problem" theory. What does the fact that most guns in NYC come from certain states show you? Criminals, by their nature, will break the law to get what they need. If we outlawed guns nationally, the crimanls would go to Mexico or some other country to get them. Then what would happen? The guy who owns a restaurant and is trying to feed his family is gonna get robbed, and he's gonna lose his entire life savings because he couldn't protect HIS PROPERTY."

 

 

Well first it seems as though you may be competely paraniod. But it shows me we need one federal law unifying the states when it comes to this issue. Why don't you pay a visit to Cory Booker, the recently elected Mayor of Newark NJ who after making public statements of fighting crime and gangs on a level the previous administration never did, the gangs may have put a price on his head. Newark had almost eight or ten shootings in one weekend alone two weeks ago where a few people were killed and at least 10 injured.

 

 

"Address the root of the problem, and laws wont be needed. In the 40s, 50s, and 60s we didn't need gun control laws. Crime rates were low. I find it a little odd that as the above mentioned problems start taking hold in our cities, the more of a problem the crime rate became."

 

 

While I do believe that there are socio economic issues that contribute to the problem, not all people who are likely to use guns come from one class or race or religion or social status. So how does one get to the root of the problem? The fastest and easiest solution imho is to ban hand guns, automatic weapons and assult rifles. There are too many people around who do not have the responsibility or conscience to handle them correctly. The only exception would be hunting weapons.

 

It is my opinion that the root of the problem is the accessibility of handguns.

 

Best

 

Tim

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

It is my opinion that the root of the problem is the accessibility of handguns.

 

Best

 

Tim

 

In response to your statement as well as the statement from Richard Boddington that downtrodden areas are being "flooded" with guns...

 

The access to guns is not coming from retail outlets, it is coming from the black market which is not being fed by retail outlets.

[Dan Goulder]

So if I can re-cap some of the earlier posts commenting on my comments. America has issues with racism, drugs, and poverty, so this produces high crime areas. And apparently flooding these zones with guns has nothing to do with the shootings that occur there daily?

 

Do I have it right?

 

R,

Hey man, why do you have to keep on spoiling people's gun fantasies with your reality?

 

By the way, since we here in the USA tend to live in an idiotic "monkey see, monkey do" culture, the people in the filmmaking community, such as represented here in this forum, do bear some responsibility regarding the content of the material we put out. What goes around comes around...

[Guest]

"The access to guns is not coming from retail outlets, it is coming from the black market which is not being fed by retail outlets."

 

Ok so you would have me believe that the criminals in the crime invested areas of America never buy their guns at the local gun shop, wait the five days, and have a BG check etc etc?

 

Every gun crime committed in America was done with an illegally acquired weapon? The legit weapons from gun shops are used only for target practice?

 

Ok I've got it now, thanks for clearing up that point.

 

R,

 

As to the amount of guns in Canada. Yes there are many rural people that have hunting rifles etc. The big difference is that Canada draws the line at letting people walk around with a concealed weapon ie a hand gun. The law makes perfect sense and draws a clear distinction that hunters need not worry about.

 

It floors me, and I mean floors me, that the NRA fights things like a ban on automatic assualt rifles. I mean come on you gun lovers what $^%##*^ does some one need an M16 or AK-47 for? How many deer do you want to mow down at one time? What's next, private ownership of rocket launchers and ICBMs?

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

"The access to guns is not coming from retail outlets, it is coming from the black market which is not being fed by retail outlets."

 

Ok so you would have me believe that the criminals in the crime invested areas of America never buy their guns at the local gun shop, wait the five days, and have a BG check etc etc?

 

Every gun crime committed in America was done with an illegally acquired weapon? The legit weapons from gun shops are used only for target practice?

 

Ok I've got it now, thanks for clearing up that point.

 

R,

 

As to the amount of guns in Canada. Yes there are many rural people that have hunting rifles etc. The big difference is that Canada draws the line at letting people walk around with a concealed weapon ie a hand gun. The law makes perfect sense and draws a clear distinction that hunters need not worry about.

 

It floors me, and I mean floors me, that the NRA fights things like a ban on automatic assualt rifles. I mean come on you gun lovers what $^%##*^ does some one need an M16 or AK-47 for? How many deer do you want to mow down at one time? What's next, private ownership of rocket launchers and ICBMs?

 

Ok now you are walking into territory where I have some knowledge that I don't have to look up.

 

Off the top of my head, I believe that the statistic is that 85% of the violent crimes in America that are committed with guns are committed by criminals with past violent offenses. For your information Richard, these criminals are individuals would would be turned away once their background check was run because a felony pre-empts you from owning a firearm.

 

Assault rifles were banned, homicide rates did not drop. The criminals found other guns to use or bought their assualt rifles illegally. Interesting how this supports my point that the criminals will find what they need.

 

It's also interesting how in Canada, the country you so boastfully brag about gun safety in...the violent crimes that are committed with firearms are overwhelmingly committed with illegal, unregistered guns.

 

As to the amount of guns in Canada. Yes there are many rural people that have hunting rifles etc. The big difference is that Canada draws the line at letting people walk around with a concealed weapon ie a hand gun. The law makes perfect sense and draws a clear distinction that hunters need not worry about.

 

 

As far as allowing people to walk around with a concealed weapon, it's not quite that simple in the U.S. Training courses, background checks, and shooting qualifications are required in order to obtain a concealed carry permit, a permit that state and local gov'ts do not take lightly. No one with even a minor criminal background would be permitted. If you looked up the statistics on people who legally carry concealed weapons being involved in a shooting (even in self defense) you would find that they are staggeringly low, almost non-existant.

Edited July 5, 2006 by N_Chaszeyka

[timHealy]

In response to your statement as well as the statement from Richard Boddington that downtrodden areas are being "flooded" with guns...

 

The access to guns is not coming from retail outlets, it is coming from the black market which is not being fed by retail outlets.

 

 

I using the term "accessibility" when referring to where one can get a gun whether it be a retail store, gun show, black market, or a neighbor.

 

I think it would be narrow mined to say that guns bought from a retailer would never be used in a crime. It wouldn't take much to buy a gun legally in one state, grind a serial number off the weapon, and sell it in another state.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

best

 

Tim

[Guest]

"It's also interesting how in Canada, the country you so boastfully brag about gun safety in...the violent crimes that are committed with firearms are overwhelmingly committed with illegal, unregistered guns."

 

That might be true without looking it up of course. And makes sense since, thankfully, buying a hand gun at your local gun store isn't possible.

 

Now guess what, the vast majority of hand guns used to committ violent crimes in Canada are smuggled over the border from guess where? If you said the USA you'd be right. It isn't enough for America's nutty gun laws to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, but Canadians have to die as well.

 

Gee thanks.

 

R,

[Michael Nash]

Just as one example of how bad things have gotten: When the "big one" (a truly major earthquake) next hits a Californian metroplitan area, and hundreds of thousands of people are without electricity, water, food, shelter, healthcare, money, jobs, transportation, police or fire protection for _WEEKS_ ... the earthquake "emergency kit" supplies a very few of of have dutifully stashed in our homes and garages won't do us diddly -- because local yokels, our mostly white civilian "friends and neighbors" WITH GUNS will take food and water out of the mouths of babys and grandmas and drive the rest of us out of what little safe shelter remains standing.

 

Wow, Peter. That's a lot of conjecture and stereotyping. You do not speak for me nor the sum total of gun owners.

 

I bet if you ask most gun-owning Americans why they own a gun(s), fairly high up on their list of reasons/excuses is that they believe (correctly or not) that the US Constitution _encourages_ them to arm against the _possibility_ of a goverment take-over. I believe they'll even say this with some pride, because they've been brainwashed into believing that the goverment is their enemy _already_.

 

No. I believe that the Constitution on this point encourages individual freedom with individual responsibility -- as opposed to blind faith in a governing body to protect all individuals, who don't have any right to protect themselves.

 

I know that the police are simply incapable of protecting every citizen from violent crime at all times. And at times of crisis like disaster, governmental resources are spread even more thin or handicapped, leaving individual citizens to rely on themselves just that much more. I do quite a bit of work with the LA County Sheriff's Department, and I've seen and heard first hand what police forces can and cannot do, and how long it takes to respond with the necessary resources. I've documented the LA County Emergency Command Center, and I just did 10hrs. of ridealong with Deputies last night.

 

Yeah, sure, there are plenty of "brown"-skinned people in the US who have guns -- as expected, since we're all drinking the same NRA-sponsored Kool-Aid -- but, duh! -- them "brown"-skinned folks are the _minority_, so who actually (just in terms of numbers alone) has more "reason" to feel paranoid and threatened?

 

Peter, you're the only one who's introduced the issue of racist sterotypes to this discussion. No one else is using racial or ethnic lines to justify anything, yet you persist in throwing it out there to justify your argument. You're not helping your own cause of rationalism when you use broad, generic stereotypes.

 

We all know that crime can be committed by any race, gender and age. And I live in Los Angeles, where the "color" of skin is hugely mixed and varied, so all this stuff about white rednecks defending themselves against a small minority of brown skinned people just doesn't apply. Do you remember the LA riots when Korean store owners used guns to defend their shops from the rioters in largely African-American neighborhoods? It's a big melting pot. I'm not pretending that racism doesn't exist in this country, but it's certainly not the factor in gun ownership that you're making it out to be.

 

Your argument here is very slim on facts, and comes across as ignorant opinion. I'm not saying that you are ignorant, but your statements here don't really hold up to scrutiny.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

""As usual", you forget that at least two of the people participating in this discussion describe themselves as LIBERAL gun-supporters/owners.

What, no mention of the thousands of accidental [gunshot] injuries and deaths caused annually by "law-abiding" citizens?"

 

... Let me get this straight, your saying since guns may accidentally kill innocent people, we should outlaw them? If that's the case, why don't we outlaw kitchen knives, or theme park rides, or cars!

 

==> PD: We both know guns are primarily designed for their their ability to destroy/kill a target. "Kitchen knives, or theme park rides, or cars" are not. You do know this, right? <==

 

 

"So, wait, the rest of us should own guns because our culture encourages stupid or unhealthy or dangerous behaviour?"

 

Basically. We have to protect ourselves somehow.

 

==> PD: We would agree on that ... <==

 

 

Besides, even if there were gun contro laws, im not going to entrust that great organization known as the LAPD to enforce them.

 

==> PD: ... except you mean something entirely different when you say "protect ourselves somehow". When I say it, I mean a democratic country governed under a body of laws. When you say it, you mean every man for himself, e.g.: anarchy. <==

 

 

""Villanizes"? Wow, you think WalMart, CocaCola, General Motors, Exon, et al _villanize_ "people of faith"? After all, these are the big corporations who _pay_ for most popular culture. Why would they try to alienate/victimize the majority of their customers? You do understand that most Americans consider themselves "religious" or "church going" and such?"

 

No, not any of the companies you mentioned do that, or directly at least. They are smart. On the other hand, you have this undercurrent of popular culture which discourages Christian (and any other world religion for that matter) morality. You can't even go onto the internet without being bombarded with pornography advertisements.

 

==> PD: Get over it. Not even the Chinese government has completely "discouraged" Internet-based info which they seek to outlaw from their country. Anyway, pornography has killed and injured a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of people injured and killed by guns, so it's not worth mentioning in a discussion concerning "gun safety". <==

 

 

"In reality, a whole mess of self-described "religious" types actually _like_ (in a sneaky kind of way) guns-n-tits-n-ass in their culture, otherwise a big chunk of the money that pays for all that junk would disappear overnight. It's just like the "liberals" who support/own gun ownership: They know it's wrong, but they just can't help themselves."

 

Not true at all. Don't look to Rush Limbaugh as the typical Christian please. Some Christians may watch this type of stuff for entertainment, but it's only because they are strong enough in their beliefs not to be influenced by it, or they have this half-assed (don't know any other way to put it lol) idea of religion where it's okay to disregard moral teachings, because you "still believe in God."

 

==> PD: I didn't mention R.L., you did. But now that you've brought him up: Many of us knew he was an ass long, long before his long, slow downfall. It was easy to figure out because: Almost every word out his mouth was, A.) A Total Lie, and B.) Pro-gun, hate-mongering, anti-poor people, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-family, anti-intellectual, and on & on ad naseum. Many, many "Christians" supported him then, and many, many "Christians" continue to support him (or his carbon-copy ilk), directly or indirectly.

 

Just like some people can "name that tune" after hearing just the first three notes in almost any song, there are lots of us who can "name the Nazi" after hearing just the first few words out of these guys' mouths. R.L. was just one of many who spew the bile his kind prefers to swim/trade in. <==

 

 

"If you're looking for scapegoats, instead of picking on "defenseless" low-income single Moms (who in reality could whoop yo' ass in a fair fight), why don't you instead have a long heart-to-heart talk with your porno-buying-gun-pack'n-bible-thump'n brothers and sisters? _That's_ where the money and the power is."

 

I'm not picking on low income single moms. I'm saying that they do not have the resources available to them that a middle class family with 2 parents does. You can say all you want, but statistics show that children born out of wedlock, and/or into a 1 parent home, are more likely to end up in jail and/or commit crimes.

 

==> PD: And you can say all you want, but in a democratic, civilized country, it wouldn't be difficult for most single parents to be as successful raising children as two-parent (or, heavens!, three-parent or four-parent) families. Here's another hint: Hillary Clinton didn't originate the idea, "It takes a village to raise a child." This is an old, old concept, practiced for centuries _before_ American Christians existed. <==

 

==> PD: I should add that I'm _not_ a fan of Hillary Clinton. <==

 

 

"Of course, if you really did this, you might learn that many of them really don't want to give up their violence-and-violent-sex-riddled culture, thank you very much. So _then_ what do you do, have a nervous breakdown? Damn them to eternal hell? Kill them all?"

 

Huh? What gives me the right or the power to damn somebody to eternal hell?

 

==> PD: Sorry, perhaps your branch of Christianity doesn't go in for this sort of thing. My apologies. <==

 

 

"Hint: It's a lot easier to just use the brain She gave you and lighten up. Guns don't kill people; it's people who think guns are AOK who kill people."

 

Exactly. How do people come about with the idea its okay to kill people? When the media glamorizes a criminal, they are sending subliminal messages that that type of behaviour is okay. I'm sure seeing Scarface on DVD when your 13 years old, seeing all the money and power he has, leaves quite an impression.

 

==> PD: Agreed. <==

 

 

"No, not just more ethical behaviour in what you mean by "inner cities" (code for where "brown"-skinned people live)"

 

I'm wondering why you have to bring race into the issue? Plenty of inner cities have white people living in them. This isn't a race issue. The fact you see it as such shows your level of thinking.

 

==> PD: _You_ brought race into the discussion by using the code-phrase "inner city". Typically this phrase has a very particular meaning when used by people who support "conservative" causes such as "the right to bear arms" and so forth. In any event, to pretend that race _isn't_ relavent to a discussion of guns in America is unrealistic at best. <==

 

 

", but rather much, MUCH more ethical behaviour in the true centers of power of our cities: Especially, and starting first with the White House, Senate, and House of Representative in Washington, DC ... "

 

Wait a second. If these people are so corrupt, why do you want to entrust the duty of enforcing these gun control laws with them? I agree with you 100%. Politicans are crooks and can't be trusted. The average guy with a family and kids to feed on the other hand, he's the one who can be trusted. Leave it to him to protect his property, not the corrupt L.A.P.D. or some politician in Washington.

 

==> PD: In spite of the fact that I was born and raised in New Jersey, where US government corruption was pretty much invented, and me being an Italian-American no less, I _still_ have faith in democratically-elected governments and politicians. Believe me, that's saying a lot. :) I've seen it work in my own lifetime, in communities I've lived in, and learned about examples in countries around the world. I can understand if someone has never seen for themselves that democracy can work, and as a result they might be completely cynical about politicians and government officials. However, this hasn't been my experience. I think -- I know -- it can work. I also know, given the US's dismal gun-induced injury and death rates, that "the average guy" (both good and bad average guys) obviously can't and shouldn't be trusted to own guns. <==

 

 

"Sorry, missed this one: Did this get into the US Constitution already? Myself, I'd much rather a single parent love me than have two parents who hate eachother, me, and their miserable lives. Anyone who thinks a single parent can't successfully raise a child in a _civilized_ country has really, really not been paying attention. Notice, I didn't say "in America" -- I can't use "successfully raise a child", "civilized" and "America" in the same sentence. (Whoops, just did ...)"

 

Once again, your not looking at the staistics. It is proven when your born into a 1 parent family, chances are you will commit more crimes than somebody born into a family with 2 parents. You can succesfully raise a child on your own, but it's much harder to do so and sets you back.

 

I think you have a misconception about most parents in America. Of course anybody would rather have 1 parent who loves them than 2 who hate them, but quite honestly how many parents hate their children or abuse them? A very small percentage.

 

"Um, that's one of the things civilized people "gladly" pay taxes for ... so that trained, licensed, and democratically selected professionals can keep criminals in check."

 

But you just got done talking about how corurpt politicians were. I'm confused.

 

==> PD: Again, if America behaved like a modern, civilized country, child care (in every sense of the word "care") would be well taken care of. I _don't_ want the church around the corner in charge of kids' upbringing. I'm much more comfortable with a family-community partnership handling this. Of course, religion being a part of many communities, "the church(es)" would be involved, but not in charge. <==

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

Now guess what, the vast majority of hand guns used to committ violent crimes in Canada are smuggled over the border from guess where? If you said the USA you'd be right. It isn't enough for America's nutty gun laws to be responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans, but Canadians have to die as well.

 

Gee thanks.

 

R,

 

I'll avoid the invitiation to get into a U.S. vs. Canada debate with you over your inflammatory "Gee thanks." statement and keep this to the topic. With the exception of this one remark...if crime is a problem in your country address the criminals with your spite, not your neighbors with unnecessary blame.

 

Doesn't the fact that the guns are smuggled into Canada from somewhere else, go to show that gun control cannot solve the problem? Criminals will go to whatever extent necessary to commit crimes. Crime is, generally speaking, an unrational action, committed by an unreasonable person.

 

I have quite clearly shown in my previous post that crime and gun related crimes are not a result of access to guns, so the issue must run deeper.

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

Wow, Peter. That's a lot of conjecture and stereotyping. You do not speak for me nor the sum total of gun owners.

Hi Michael: Or it could be the result of shrewd observation on my part. I might be wrong.

 

No. I believe that the Constitution on this point encourages individual freedom with individual responsibility -- as opposed to blind faith in a governing body to protect all individuals, who don't have any right to protect themselves.

 

I know that the police are simply incapable of protecting every citizen from violent crime at all times. And at times of crisis like disaster, governmental resources are spread even more thin or handicapped, leaving individual citizens to rely on themselves just that much more. I do quite a bit of work with the LA County Sheriff's Department, and I've seen and heard first hand what police forces can and cannot do, and how long it takes to respond with the necessary resources. I've documented the LA County Emergency Command Center, and I just did 10hrs. of ridealong with Deputies last night.

In an America which wasn't drowning in a sea of guns, our police would have a much easier go of it. I didn't say "easy", I said "easier".

 

Peter, you're the only one who's introduced the issue of racist sterotypes to this discussion. No one else is using racial or ethnic lines to justify anything, yet you persist in throwing it out there to justify your argument. You're not helping your own cause of rationalism when you use broad, generic stereotypes.

I don't think that's correct. I responded to another person's use of race-related code-language. We Americans are uncomfortable discussing our racism. As I mentioned in another post, America's love affair with guns is saturated with our racism. Yes, I'm saying if you're an American, you are -- at least in part -- a racist. If you're uncomfortable with that simple statement, there's not much I can do about it.

 

We all know that crime can be committed by any race, gender and age. And I live in Los Angeles, where the "color" of skin is hugely mixed and varied, so all this stuff about white rednecks defending themselves against a small minority of brown skinned people just doesn't apply. Do you remember the LA riots when Korean store owners used guns to defend their shops from the rioters in largely African-American neighborhoods? It's a big melting pot. I'm not pretending that racism doesn't exist in this country, but it's certainly not the factor in gun ownership that you're making it out to be.

As they say in this neck of the woods, "Berkeley, CA is not the world." And the melting pot of L.A. isn't "the world" of America. Except for both town's and America's love of guns. In that, all of America is one big, gun-toting family.

 

Your argument here is very slim on facts, and comes across as ignorant opinion. I'm not saying that you are ignorant, but your statements here don't really hold up to scrutiny.

My argument _is_ my opinion, and it's based on my life experience, consisting of an almost infinite string of alleged "facts". Now, you or someone else may agree/disagree with my perception that "gun safety" in America is a myth, but that doesn't auto-magically make us right.

[Guest]

"I'll avoid the invitiation to get into a U.S. vs. Canada debate with you over your inflammatory "Gee thanks."

 

You think "gee thanks" is over inflamatory? I suppose people have to walk around on egg shells when you're in the room if think that's over inflamatory.

 

"Doesn't the fact that the guns are smuggled into Canada from somewhere else, go to show that gun control cannot solve the problem? "

 

If the US would start some logical gun control, then guns would be harder to get in the USA, therefore harder to smuggle into Canada as well. Simple fact is that the USA has a ridiculously high amount of gun crime compared to well...the rest of the planet, and at the same time has very loose gun control laws compared to well...the rest of the planet. Now you're telling me there is no correlation there? Come on.

 

"I have quite clearly shown in my previous post that crime and gun related crimes are not a result of access to guns, so the issue must run deeper."

 

You must be joking, I'll assume this is the comedic part of your post. If what you say is true then all the anti-gun lobby in the USA has to do is read your post, realize they are beat, and quit.

 

R,

[timHealy]

"crime and gun related crimes are not a result of access to guns"

 

 

This strikes me as quite humorous as well

 

Best

 

Tim

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

"I'll avoid the invitiation to get into a U.S. vs. Canada debate with you over your inflammatory "Gee thanks."

 

You think "gee thanks" is over inflamatory? I suppose people have to walk around on egg shells when you're in the room if think that's over inflamatory.

 

"Doesn't the fact that the guns are smuggled into Canada from somewhere else, go to show that gun control cannot solve the problem? "

 

If the US would start some logical gun control, then guns would be harder to get in the USA, therefore harder to smuggle into Canada as well. Simple fact is that the USA has a ridiculously high amount of gun crime compared to well...the rest of the planet, and at the same time has very loose gun control laws compared to well...the rest of the planet. Now you're telling me there is no correlation there? Come on.

 

"I have quite clearly shown in my previous post that crime and gun related crimes are not a result of access to guns, so the issue must run deeper."

 

You must be joking, I'll assume this is the comedic part of your post. If what you say is true then all the anti-gun lobby in the USA has to do is read your post, realize they are beat, and quit.

 

R,

 

Generally people find me amiable and easy going, never once have I been told they feel the need to walk on eggshells. I'm simply participating in a discussion and I didn't find your remark "over inflamatory" I found it inflamatory in an unneccary way.

 

You obviously haven't read my previous post, otherwise you wouldn't be making unfounded, exaggerated statements such as "compared to the rest of the planet". If the planet only involves Canada then that is one thing. In actuality though, there are a lot more places besides Canada, and many of them have much looser regulations on gun control then the U.S., many of them with much lower gun related crime rates as well.

 

I wasn't joking. I'd like to believe my jokes are funnier than that, come on man give me a little credit :) . Much of the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who believe that blanket legislation will solve the problem and keep them from having to apply a real effort to social equality and peace. These are the same people who would have us just pull anchor and head out off Iraq right now without paying any mind to what that would leave the citizens of that country to deal with, it's a bad situation but blanket, black and white solutions won't make the situation better. Much of the same is to be said about issues with firearms. I have not once said that there isn't a problem with violence in America. I, happen to live in a situation where, I am not comfortable with the idea of not being allowed to own a firearm, particularly for the defense of my home and loved ones.

 

I live in an area where home invasion/murders are common gang activity. My home was the target of one of these attempted attacks. My girlfriend, a very anti-gun woman at the time, was home alone. The police would have had no chance to help her had the perpetrators been able to make their way into the house. Luckily, we have a good neighbor who was willing to step in in my absence.

 

My girlfriend's attitude quickly changed about choices in personal defense and regular firearms training was embraced.

 

If gun control becomes guns banned, what would her options be then? Raped and killed because she doesn't stand a chance in a knife fight with two large felons?

 

Oh, and for the sake of Peter DeCrescenzo, these weren't "Brown" people. Crime comes in all shapes sizes and colors.

[Bob Hayes]

The whole right to bear arms issue was created as a wedge issue under the Regan administration in an attempt to split the Democratic Party. 50% of US families are legal gun owners. The Right knew Liberals wouldn?t be able to back away from the desire for gun control thereby forcing gun owners to vote with the Right. What is funny is that liberals don?t feel guns cause crime. Most of them feel under funded schools, lack of a fair wages, lack of jobs, lack of health care, and lack of child care cause crime. But they?ve gotten obsessed with controlling guns. Why? Because they fear Dick Cheney is going to shoot them? No. They fear some criminal is going to shoot them. So the law abiding gun owners, fearing gun control, vote for some right wing nut that votes against funding schools, fair wages, jobs, health care, child care, and clean air. By the way dirty air probably doesn?t lead to crime. In fact creating dirty air is currently a crime. I don?t know how it fits in the equation but it does.

[VincentD.]

Yea Reagan pulled that whole right to bear arms thing right out of thin air.

 

Boy, the founding fathers must be rolling in their graves.

[Guest]

"Much of the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who believe that blanket legislation will solve the problem and keep them from having to apply a real effort to social equality and peace."

 

Yeah Jim Brady and his wife certainly fit the bill. Whackos!

 

R,

[Peter J DeCrescenzo]

... Much of the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who believe that blanket legislation will solve the problem and keep them from having to apply a real effort to social equality and peace.

Much of the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who think "It's my way or the highway.", and "Might makes right.", and similar drivel.

 

Wait. Did both of us just make a wild accusation? No: You're the one with the gun, so of course you're right and I'm wrong. However, my admission of this makes me the smarter one.

 

These are the same people who would have us just pull anchor and head out off Iraq right now without paying any mind to what that would leave the citizens of that country to deal with, it's a bad situation but blanket, black and white solutions won't make the situation better.

No, blanket, black and white lies got us into, and keep us in, the "situation" in Iraq. Further, the exact same people (including some Democratic politicians) would now have us believe a "bloodbath" will ensue if we "cut and run" (gag me) from Iraq now. A bloodbath will _ensue_? Wait, you mean what's _already_ transpired -- at least tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans and non-Americans in the region injured and killed -- doesn't fit any sane person's definiton of a bloodbath?

 

Likewise, as much can be said of similar arguments against gun control in America. Pro-gun folks say, "We've got to have guns, otherwise a bloodbath will _ensue_!"

 

Yup, those pro-gun and pro-war folks sure are the rational, logical thinkers!

 

Much of the same is to be said about issues with firearms. I have not once said that there isn't a problem with violence in America. I, happen to live in a situation where, I am not comfortable with the idea of not being allowed to own a firearm, particularly for the defense of my home and loved ones. I live in an area where home invasion/murders are common gang activity. My home was the target of one of these attempted attacks. My girlfriend, a very anti-gun woman at the time, was home alone. The police would have had no chance to help her had the perpetrators been able to make their way into the house. Luckily, we have a good neighbor who was willing to step in in my absence. My girlfriend's attitude quickly changed about choices in personal defense and regular firearms training was embraced. If gun control becomes guns banned, what would her options be then? Raped and killed because she doesn't stand a chance in a knife fight with two large felons?

I'm sympathetic to your situation, but I'm not convinced (based on the information presented) you have no other options other than to arm yourself. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but rather your firsthand account doesn't convince me we shouldn't have rational, strict gun control in America.

 

Just so it's clear, let me repeat that by "rational, strict gun control" I'd include adequate funding for police and courts to do their jobs, and for communities to "protect" their citizens through education and social services designed to reduce the "need" for criminal livelyhoods.

 

Oh, and for the sake of Peter DeCrescenzo, these weren't "Brown" people. Crime comes in all shapes sizes and colors.

Yes, most crime in America is committed by white folks against white folks, then next by white folks against non-white folks, and then next by non-white folks against everyone else. Easy access to guns greatly greases the entire process so it's one smooth-running machine.

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

"Much of the anti-gun lobby in the U.S. consists of irrational, or illogical thinkers who believe that blanket legislation will solve the problem and keep them from having to apply a real effort to social equality and peace."

 

Yeah Jim Brady and his wife certainly fit the bill. Whackos!

 

R,

 

While trying to participate in an educated discussion with reasonable information, you continue to pick out individual sentences and exaggerate them as though I'm Charleton Heston's personal propagandist.

 

In a thread littered with unbased personal opinions with no facts supporting them, just hearsay evidence, I have presented factual statistics that largely back my opinion. An opinion that simply put, states that crime as a whole is the problem and not guns. Guns are an enabler to the crime but with or without them, the U.S. will continue to lead the world in occurances of crime. Firearms bans will only be dodging the real issues that lie beneath. My best analogy is this: It's like saying "Drunk drivers use cars to commit crimes and kill people, we need to ban driving."

 

There is my argument. With the current tone of the thread, I'll add nothing further. If the intelligence of this discussion rises above that of an 8th social studies class please contact me via email and I'll be happy to rejoin the conversation.