Too many guns in the US? - Chess Forums - Page 4

spair75

Dec 6, 2007

0

#61

Unbeliever wrote:

This argument is pointless, both pro-ownership and anti-ownership apparently fail to see to the crux of this matter. I turn on the news, and there is a overpublicized story about how the ownership of guns caused XYZ Catastrophe.

What these reporters fail to see, however, is that the gun did not shoot itself. A gun is simply a tool, and the human being is the catalyst. If we take firearms away from the general population, that means that only criminals will have a source through which to obtain these guns, leaving the majority of the population unprotected. I don't know about you, but if the military in any country bombed my house, I wouldn't yell at the bomb, I would yell at the military.

So unbeliever - are you anti or for?

Kingfisher

Dec 6, 2007

0

#62

Vlad2075 wrote:

WHEN A GOVERNMENT ELIMINATES THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP & BEAR ARMS...ESSENTIALLY LEAVING HONEST, LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DEFENSELESS...WE AS A SOCIETY ARE DOOMED! WE WILL BE A SOCIETY OF SLAVES TO THE GOVERNMENT.

GUN CONTROL IS NOT CRIME CONTROL!

I beg to differ. Croatia has both a very liberal gun law and a high percentage of gun ownership, 30-40% I think. But if you go and ask people if they feel free in regards to the goverment everyone will say "no".

Point of the matter is, if a goverment decided to enslave it's populace, fun would not stop them. Disbande social security, cut off their lines of credit and cut off public health care system and you'll soon see scores of heavily armed rebels surrendering to unarmed beaurocrats.

guarana

Dec 6, 2007

0

#63

Yet again: The problem is not guns, the problem is ghettos. Gun banning is just an issue politicians use to control people.

likesforests

Dec 6, 2007

0

#64

Spair75, why are you playing out hopeless positions at a slow pace? In the below position you are Black and NM Reb is White. This is off-topic, but then again, so is politics.

spair75

Dec 6, 2007

0

#65

Yes it does look hopeless - and I did make a mistake two moves back but hey i have so many other players who have dragged it out to with me - i guess it is correspondence chess

it seems that a queen exchange is the next thing now

NM TheOldReb

Dec 6, 2007

0

#66

Its not only my game that spair is lost in and dragging out.....he has more than a dozen such games! I dont care what others have done to you spare, did I do it to you? No......this is the last game I play with you though, you can rest assured.

jamjosh

Dec 6, 2007

0

#67

guarana wrote:

I don't know if taking away the right to bear arms is the best solution. Homicide rates can be curbed through less fascist means than restricting freedoms. In Canada, at least, the rate of gun ownership is fairly high, while the homicide rate is reasonably low (especially gun-related homicide). Meanwhile, the homicide rate in the UK is pretty much the same as Canada's, even though England has basically outlawed gun ownership.

Also, keep in mind that the homicide rate in the USA is not really all that high when compared to, say, their neighbor to the south, Mexico. The USA has the most guns per capita, but they aren't the most violent by a long shot. Homicide is what needs to be dealt with, not guns. I know it is in vogue to hate the US, but their homicide rate is a symptom of greater problems rather than gun ownership.

As for these people who go on "killing sprees"... Statistically they are almost irrelevant, they represent an increbily slim slice of the human population. These people should not be considered part of the same category as the great majority of homicide cases as they represent a sort of rare, imbalanced human event. And do you really think these extreme cases would be stopped by restricting gun ownership, or would they simply build bombs or come by their firearms through illegal means? These are people who think they have something to prove to the world, mind you, rather than poverty-sticken thugs looking for money.

Guarana, I totally agree with your first post. Your second post about crime in the US being caused by Ghettos is absurd!!! There is a higher than normal rate of crime in the USA due to a number of issues some of which are Drugs (not limited to ghettos), gangs (not limited to ghettos), poverty not necessarily caused by a lack of jobs but due more to laziness and bad attitudes (again not limited to ghettos), the ghettos and trailer parks of america have a higher than average crime rate in them due to the low income/jobless folks who live there, but to say that the "Ghettos" are the reason, you are off base on that point. These latest "emotional killing rampages" in my mind, is due to kids being spoiled and given everything as they grow up. They start to expect everything to be given to them. Get your kids off the computer games and the television and get them out of the house, make them play outside with other kids so that they can learn social skills and won't feel the need to lash out for attention. Maybe they can adjust to life normally if they don't feel so isolated. Anyway just my thoughts. Maybe I'm off base but......thats what forums are for.

FTW

Dec 6, 2007

0

#68

tonightonly7 wrote:

I don't think we should amend our constitution.

Why not? Thats exactly what Bush done to fight terrorism when he signed "the patriot act". The Constitution was untouched for 225 years till that, and the name sounds so patriotic. It is anything but because we lost more freedom by the patriot act than we gained. Our founding fathers had to be rolling in there graves when that was passed.

If they do amend the right to bear arms then you can say that the patriot act was the smoking gun that cracked the foundation of the constitution.

Unbeliever-inactive

Dec 6, 2007

0

#69

spair75 wrote: Unbeliever wrote:

This argument is pointless, both pro-ownership and anti-ownership apparently fail to see to the crux of this matter. I turn on the news, and there is a overpublicized story about how the ownership of guns caused XYZ Catastrophe.

What these reporters fail to see, however, is that the gun did not shoot itself. A gun is simply a tool, and the human being is the catalyst. If we take firearms away from the general population, that means that only criminals will have a source through which to obtain these guns, leaving the majority of the population unprotected. I don't know about you, but if the military in any country bombed my house, I wouldn't yell at the bomb, I would yell at the military.

So unbeliever - are you anti or for?

Spair, my position is in between both sides of the argument. I disagree heavily on the issue of banning guns completely, as it would leave the general population defenseless, but I also disagree with allowing anybody to purchase any gun available. I believe there should be certain restrictions:

1) No one under 21 can legally own a weapon.

2) No automatic assault weapons

3) No semi-automatic assault weapons

4) No explosives, whatsoever

5) No sniper rifles, or guns with a range of over 1000 feet.

These are simple restrictions, but should work effectively.

To reiterate my position, if I, as a legal U.S. adult citizen wish to own a gun for self-protection, then I should have the right to do so. If I find myself in a situation where I need to use said gun, I should have the ability to do so. However, if I am being mugged and find the need to use a gun, a pistol easily serves my purpose, as the threat of a firearm is often more useful than the firearm itself. I do not, and should not feel the need to walk around my house toting an AK47, Sniper Rifle, hand grenade, and full body armor.

To summarize, restrict guns by the age which uses them, and their general accuracy, power, and range. This will keep them (hopefully) in the hands of mature adults, and generally decrease the power of a general firearm in the population, by taking away the exclusivity with which such arms seem to be used.

JuliusH

Dec 6, 2007

0

#70

I'm a little afraid of jumping back into this, but did anyone see the psychologist and criminal profiler on the Today show this morning? The profiler had interesting things to say...the one that stuck out to me was about our "narcissistic society". Where's spell check? Wait profiler isn't a word?! Your suggestion is pro-filer?! I knew it was a bad idea getting back into this discussion!!

spair75

Dec 6, 2007

0

#71

Thats cool unbeliever, but it has been proven that youths under 21 can easily get to the weapons of their parents. The problem still remains therefore.

Unbeliever-inactive

Dec 6, 2007

0

#72

Proven by who, where? As a youth, I did not need to steal a gun from my parents, I went to a school where I could have bought one if I so desired. You miss my whole point spair, gun control can only restrict gun usage so far. As you have stated, any relatively determined person can get ahold of a gun, so the problem is, how does one prevent any person from making a bad choice? It is the person behind the gun who makes the decision to flick the safety, and pull the trigger, so how do we prevent people from making that choice?

The solution is simple, education. There have been many sociological studies relating general literacy and required education level to crime rate. We must influence each person so that they can be responsible when making the choice of whether or not to pull the trigger. It is not a cure-all, as crime will always exist, and the weapons with which to commit these crimes will always exist, but a knowledgeable person will think before they act, and hopefully not be reduced to a situation in which their continued existence rests on whether or not they pull the trigger.

spair75

Dec 6, 2007

0

#73

Thats cool too unbeliever - but the guy recently who committed the record killing spree, wasn't he educated? I suppose this kid in Omaha was educated. So was Mcveigh etc.... . Well, I guess the argument will go on. Let us say, we agree to disagree.

Unbeliever-inactive

Dec 6, 2007

0

#74

And there we come to the crux of the argument, and of all arguments regarding crime. A relatively determined person can break the law, I myself could probably hack this chess site. But do I choose to? No. Will I ever choose to? No. Anybody can commit a crime, and there is only so much laws, restrictions, and general deterrents can do to stop someone. The rest is up to a person's choice to do or not to do, and, unfortunately, neither I nor anybody else can make the choice for them. There is no mass cure for immorality, and that lies at the basis of any issue on crime, not just this one.

Harbinder

Dec 6, 2007

0

#75

An educated person bent on mass murder doesn't need a gun for it. People wishing to protect their families and homes do.

RedSoxpawn

Dec 6, 2007

0

#76

Harbinder wrote: An educated person bent on mass murder doesn't need a gun for it. People wishing to protect their families and homes do.

I second that. An educated person will find that a number of things are worse than being shot to death.

Markle

Dec 6, 2007

0

#77

I'm sorry, but i grew up in a state where we learn how to handle and RESPECT firearms when we are quite young. most of the people i know are pretty comfortable around them and feel the same way about eliminating the private individuals right to own firearms ( they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand) taking away our right to own firearms, just gives the criminals an added advantage since they will have them anyway. Don't believe me try it and find out. We will never be able to stop criminals from gaining access to some type of weapon if they wish to kill you and i for one would really like to be able to shoot back when someone else is using me for target practice. I

RedSoxpawn

Dec 7, 2007

0

#78

Amen to that. Alabama won't let the police even have a shotgun unless they buy it and can prove the precinct they work in is that bad. Everybody in the state has at least one gun and most know how to use it, even if it is in a way that they shouldn't.

spair75

Dec 7, 2007

0

#79

some people speak like enraged souls - as if frustrated by the passing time. The questions maybe that I can ask here are these - what's the use of a coat-hanger? to hang clothes with. What is the use of cars - to travel in from A to B. What is the use of kitchen knives? To peel, cut with. But if we could find ways to make coat-hangers, cars, kitchen knives safer to use - isn't it sensible to do that? What is the use of guns? To kill basically.

Shredder190

Dec 7, 2007

0

#80

Everybody else has explained the real issue to this fellow very well, but it doesn't surprise me that a Frenchy posted that topic!

Guns, my dear Frenchman, are the great equalizer, the great bulwark against tyranny. What chance do free men have against tyranny unless they have weapons and the courage to use them? Was it not Nikita Kruschev who said that Russia would not be able to subdue America because there was a Winchester behind every barn? We Americans, (unlike the French) actually value our freedom. The emasculate French, on the other hand, well..........