Gun Control

As far as Switzerland and other countries go - it is inappropriate for American society to measure itself up against these.

I don’t think what we’re trying to say is that each American household should have automatic weapon, but that a country without heavy gun-control laws does not equate into more inherent lawlessness and crime than a country with heavy gun-control laws. I think the problem lies with the society (ideology and psychology) themselves. Let’s look at Japan (with a no-gun policy) for example. They have much lower crime rates compared to America. Black and white, isn’t it? Yet, how come Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself? Hmmm… :wink:

As far as Switzerland and other countries go - it is inappropriate for American society to measure itself up against these.

why not??? :wink:

Not in the current state we are in. ;)

@TG:

Not in the current state we are in. ;)

ummm… the Swiss still exist

@Guerrilla:

@TG:

Not in the current state we are in. ;)

ummm… the Swiss still exist

different societies.
America is a society of violence. Period. Whether its on the level of the local neighbourhood, or on a globel scale, America is a big violent country. Switzerland is not.

And Janus - my point with regard to the knife is that many of the stabbings that my team had seen are not “serious stabbings”. They are the results of arguments, incidents on the street, etc. These are circumstances which would never happen should cooler heads have prevailled, and chances are the people doing the stabbing were not very happy about it afterwards (common-laws, friends, etc.). If a gun was in closer proximity than the knife, the outcome of every case that i’ve seen would have been seriously different.
In my experience in the ER with the trauma team, and as a front-linesman, true - a knife can cause some damage, but the two are unrelatable. I’d rather be stabbed by a knife retrived from an outhouse than shot by a sterile bullet 10 times out of 10.

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

@TG:

Not in the current state we are in. ;)

ummm… the Swiss still exist

different societies.
America is a society of violence. Period. Whether its on the level of the local neighbourhood, or on a globel scale, America is a big violent country. Switzerland is not.

And Janus - my point with regard to the knife is that many of the stabbings that my team had seen are not “serious stabbings”. They are the results of arguments, incidents on the street, etc. These are circumstances which would never happen should cooler heads have prevailled, and chances are the people doing the stabbing were not very happy about it afterwards (common-laws, friends, etc.). If a gun was in closer proximity than the knife, the outcome of every case that i’ve seen would have been seriously different.
In my experience in the ER with the trauma team, and as a front-linesman, true - a knife can cause some damage, but the two are unrelatable. I’d rather be stabbed by a knife retrived from an outhouse than shot by a sterile bullet 10 times out of 10.

true but at the time we were not there was a gun in every home…

that’s because of the tougher gun laws, and the markedly decreased proliferation of firearms in my country.

Which country are we talking about now?

Switzerland I think. :P

@TG:

Which country are we talking about now?

no…US

I thought this was Canada…

@TG:

I thought this was Canada…

i was referring to Canada in my analogy - i.e. the knife analogy.
The US being the violent society.
Switzerland being a country that it would be inappropriate to compare the US to.
does this make sense for all concerned?

@cystic:

that’s because of the tougher gun laws, and the markedly decreased proliferation of firearms in my country.

ok what if those were dropped??? What do you think would happen???

@Guerrilla:

@cystic:

that’s because of the tougher gun laws, and the markedly decreased proliferation of firearms in my country.

ok what if those were dropped??? What do you think would happen???

LANDOVER, Maryland (AP) – A 4-year-old boy who found a loaded gun in the house shot and killed his 5-year-old sister and seriously wounded his 7-year-old brother Saturday, police said.

The children were home alone at the time, police spokeswoman Cpl. Diane Richardson said.

“It’s a terrible situation that probably could have been avoided,” Richardson said.

• this, i take it, is different than “a tragic situation unavoidable accident”? At any rate, i think if they were dropped, then this would remain a “probably avoidable” accident.

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

@cystic:

that’s because of the tougher gun laws, and the markedly decreased proliferation of firearms in my country.

ok what if those were dropped??? What do you think would happen???

LANDOVER, Maryland (AP) – A 4-year-old boy who found a loaded gun in the house shot and killed his 5-year-old sister and seriously wounded his 7-year-old brother Saturday, police said.

The children were home alone at the time, police spokeswoman Cpl. Diane Richardson said.

“It’s a terrible situation that probably could have been avoided,” Richardson said.

• this, i take it, is different than “a tragic situation unavoidable accident”? At any rate, i think if they were dropped, then this would remain a “probably avoidable” accident.

ahhh… that argument… that was a terrible incident, but where was the parent? why was the gun not secure? also we don’t know why this parent owned this gun or if the parent was careless… why did the child know where the gun was? there is such thing as gun safety… the problem is that our western society has thought of guns in such a manner, via early TV reinforcement, that there cool to shoot at someone else… that is where the tragedy lies… children are exposed to violence everyday… even cartoons could reinforce shooting… a good disney or loony tunes, can reinforce the false sense of security that guns don’t actually kills anyone… it’s all in how they are viewed… then people are killed… and we are given tougher gun laws… and then no protection from intrusion… and the constitutional-abolitment (atleast in the US) of the second amendment…

another question: if the swiss aren’t violent and have some of the lowest firearm accident stats, then where did we miss it?.. when did we have to give up firearms in every home and for what reason?
it would be better with small children to own a rifle then a hand gun for self defense…
also have you ever handled and fired a gun?

the main thing about owning a gun is personal responsibility… do you know how to handle your gun responsibly, do you know it’s secure, and do your children know that guns are not to be handled?..

or do you have to have laws?..

GG

@Guerrilla:

ahhh… that argument… that was a terrible incident, but where was the parent? why was the gun not secure? also we don’t know why this parent owned this gun or if the parent was careless… why did the child know where the gun was? there is such thing as gun safety… the problem is that our western society has thought of guns in such a manner, via early TV reinforcement, that there cool to shoot at someone else… that is where the tragedy lies… children are exposed to violence everyday… even cartoons could reinforce shooting… a good disney or loony tunes, can reinforce the false sense of security that guns don’t actually kills anyone… it’s all in how they are viewed… then people are killed… and we are given tougher gun laws… and then no protection from intrusion… and the constitutional-abolitment (atleast in the US) of the second amendment…

Oh my goodness. This was pretty rambl-y, and i’m not sure where to begin. First, irrespective of the manner in which the guns were kept, yada yada yada, more restrictive gun laws may well have kept that gun out of the hands of that particular idiot (i.e. poor parent). As for the “violence on TV perpetuating gun killings” - if there were no guns, it would be impossible to shoot other people. Again, this is something the parents should be controlling anyway. As for “protection from intrusion” - i’m still not buying that as a valid argument - especially given the number of violent intrusions into non-gang members homes. As for the second ammendment - well, i’m not sure its that useful a constitution to require an ammendment that allows a nation of violent people to own guns to their hearts content.

another question: if the swiss aren’t violent and have some of the lowest firearm accident stats, then where did we miss it?… when did we have to give up firearms in every home and for what reason?
it would be better with small children to own a rifle then a hand gun for self defense…
also have you ever handled and fired a gun?

As for the Swiss - they are all conscripted into the military soon after graduation. Perhaps this enforces a degree of responsibility vis a vis these weapons. At the same time this is a very peaceful nation - almost too peaceful (their wealth and small population requires their neutrality and their militaristic society). But you can not compare the US to the swiss. Two completely different societies with different values and beliefs, particularly with regards to the sanctity of life vs. the “right to carry life-stealling projectile weapons”
And i don’t get your point about the rifle/handgun argument point.
And yes, i have handled and fired a gun. At the cottage i did some target practice at the garbage dump with my dad. He owns a shotfun (winchester defender punp-action shotgun) and a .22. I don’t know how this is germaine to the argument. I argue with my parents about gun-control (currently they are considered “criminals” in violation of Canada’s gun laws).

the main thing about owning a gun is personal responsibility… do you know how to handle your gun responsibly, do you know it’s secure, and do your children know that guns are not to be handled?..
or do you have to have laws?..
GG

evidently if protecting the lives and preventing the deaths of children is a useful criterion for develpment of a society, then America is getting its ass kicked figuratively speaking. If the first fails, then why not go to the second? Unless one is too proud to admit that they have failed the first and must default to the second.

Do not think that this is the only argument in my armamentarium against the proliferation of guns and for the restriction of these. It is just one more thing. One more preventable terrible occurance that has an appalling frequency in homes with guns relative to homes without.
And this can apply on the grand scale - preventable deaths in gun-countries relative to non-gun countries.
It really is idiotic - to maintain this useless amendment in the face of so much preventable destruction. So many lives lost, families destroyed, but at least you have the “second ammendment”.

@cystic:

@Guerrilla:

ahhh… that argument… that was a terrible incident, but where was the parent? why was the gun not secure? also we don’t know why this parent owned this gun or if the parent was careless… why did the child know where the gun was? there is such thing as gun safety… the problem is that our western society has thought of guns in such a manner, via early TV reinforcement, that there cool to shoot at someone else… that is where the tragedy lies… children are exposed to violence everyday… even cartoons could reinforce shooting… a good disney or loony tunes, can reinforce the false sense of security that guns don’t actually kills anyone… it’s all in how they are viewed… then people are killed… and we are given tougher gun laws… and then no protection from intrusion… and the constitutional-abolitment (atleast in the US) of the second amendment…

Oh my goodness. This was pretty rambl-y, and i’m not sure where to begin. First, irrespective of the manner in which the guns were kept, yada yada yada, more restrictive gun laws may well have kept that gun out of the hands of that particular idiot (i.e. poor parent). As for the “violence on TV perpetuating gun killings” - if there were no guns, it would be impossible to shoot other people. Again, this is something the parents should be controlling anyway. As for “protection from intrusion” - i’m still not buying that as a valid argument - especially given the number of violent intrusions into non-gang members homes. As for the second ammendment - well, i’m not sure its that useful a constitution to require an ammendment that allows a nation of violent people to own guns to their hearts content.

what about the parent that is responsible…. if there is someone that knows it’s proper use then why must they be restricted because someone else cannot grow up??? And the responsible person(s) don’t show up in the news… irresponsible ones do… gotta go will expound more later…

I’m not saying Viewing it on tv is making us a violent society, But it doesn’t help and it also reinforces the idea that a gun is “safe”… there needs to be an adult responsible in it explaining it to the child… the problem is not with option 1 because there was a time where children were not getting killed by guns in this country (US and I would automatically assume the Canadians are in this as well) then something happened and we seemingly auto reverted to option 2…

@Janus1:

look, fact of the matter is, a gun is just like any other product. it is very easy to kill someone with a number of things people own around the home. even things when not used as a weapon, proper safety is preached. the situation with a gun is the same thing. proper safety is necessary. you continually confuse guns with a destructive force. they are capable of this, yes, but thats not what they are.

This is exactly what guns are. That is all they are. You can not eat them, you can not till a garden with them. They are very impractical for writing with, they were manufactured for one purpose - to KILL people. They are owned specifically for the purpose of KILLING other people. But of course we are sooo stupid that we are surprised when someone dies as a result of proximity to a gun. A gun is nothing like any other product. I can walk into an area with 10 people and easily kill half of them with little effort. Please tell me you can do this with “any other object”. Even a 12 y/o can kill multiple people with a gun. Give a 12 y/o a knife and send him in to kill a bunch of classmates. Good luck.
Yes we preach safety about a number of objects (studying paediatrics right now - this is one of my functions). Very few of these other objects are so useful in destroying people as a gun. Nope, a gun is a purely destructive force - there are few forces as destructive.

as long as you own and operate your gun safely and smartly (yes, smartly), there is no reason you should not have it.
to say that america is a violent culture is redundant. humanity by nature is violent, this is true of all societys, everywhere on the planet. america gets most of the press however because of our size, and power. whether or not it actually is more violent, i dont think anyone can truly say, but if it is, this is also largely due to its diversity. its a melting pot.

it is not redundant.
There are few societies that have popularized violence the way that America has. It’s best selling movies and video games are the most violent. With the exception of WW II they are the first nation to bomb another and they are quick to generate conflict. It’s not just about “size and power” - it’s about the desire and willingness to use that size and power irrespective of the sovereignty of other nations. Their murder rate is horrendous for a “civilized” country (and i’m not even referring to the death penalty).
As for diversity - Canada is at least, if not more diverse than America. The difference is we’re more of a salad than a melting pot (i.e. less emphasis on assimilation). This has little to do with the fact that America’s love of its guns results in a bizaare number of its citizens being whacked so frequently.