Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
dcsang said:
Unless everyone suddenly feels the desire to beat their swords into ploughshares in America gun violence will continue as it has in the U.S. compared to other industrialized countries around the globe.
Dave
Click to expand...

The trouble is, there is always some lunatic who will try to kill people with a ploughshare.

As the parent of two beautiful little boys, my heart breaks for those families. Yet, the cold harsh truth is there is no current or future legislation that could have prevented such a senseless act of savagery. Evil is real, and there is no real way to thwart a homicidal killer hellbent on mayhem and destruction. Previous incidents have shown these deranged individuals to be very methodical in planning their attacks. In my opinion, these people would have gone to any lengths to acquire the weapons used in their attacks -- another layer of laws or bans would be inconsequential.

We need to look deeper into the psyche of our own society, from the glorification of violence coming out of Hollywood to the plethora of first-person shooter games that desensitize our youth to the concept of killing. And then we have the media hype that surrounds each incident, where the loner, social-outcast killer gets their 15 (or more) minutes of fame. Everybody recognizes Adam Lanza's name as that of the killer, but how many of us, off the top of our head, could name one child that was murdered that day? If it were up to me, these killers would remain unknown and go to their grave without the media hype and sensationalism that undoubtedly fuels the imagination of the next would-be mass murderer.

As many here discussed, there is no readily available solution to these indiscriminate acts of violence. I wish I had an answer, but I don't. You can't fix crazy.
 
JSU said:
I feel one of the underlying issues is the glamorization of violence in pop culture and mass media.

A tangent of the above is the proliferation of interactive video games where the participant can kill by the tens, hundreds and even thousands in the interest of garnering points. The gamers can even be "killed" yet return to play another game.

.
Click to expand...

I grew up watching 80s shoot em up movies and played Doom on PC and turned out ok.
 
daveleo said:
Roger, you mean well, I know, but . . .

1. Collect all the bullets currently in the USA ? (not to mention the bullet-making equipment). Shouldn't take more than a few lifetimes.
2. The day a bill goes to Congress that suggests someone is thinking about outlawing ammunition, our ammunition factories could not keep up with the demand for more ammo.
3. After a decade of wrangling and people filling their basements with ammo, when it becomes illegal, it will be imported like heroine, morphine, exotic animals, whatelse.

It is an unsolvable problem. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Dear Dave,

Maybe. But I see the ammo problem as more solvable than the gun problem. I'm not talking about collecting ready-to-fire rounds (not just bullets) from those who already own 'em: as you say, it ain't gonna happen. I'm talking about making it even a little more difficult to buy 'em. In California in the early 90s I had to show my driver's license to buy black powder. But not for .44 magnum, .45 Colt...

Cheers,

R.
 
PhotoMat said:
The trouble is, there is always some lunatic who will try to kill people with a ploughshare.

As the parent of two beautiful little boys, my heart breaks for those families. Yet, the cold harsh truth is there is no current or future legislation that could have prevented such a senseless act of savagery. Evil is real, and there is no real way to thwart a homicidal killer hellbent on mayhem and destruction. Previous incidents have shown these deranged individuals to be very methodical in planning their attacks. In my opinion, these people would have gone to any lengths to acquire the weapons used in their attacks -- another layer of laws or bans would be inconsequential.

We need to look deeper into the psyche of our own society, from the glorification of violence coming out of Hollywood to the plethora of first-person shooter games that desensitize our youth to the concept of killing. And then we have the media hype that surrounds each incident, where the loner, social-outcast killer gets their 15 (or more) minutes of fame. Everybody recognizes Adam Lanza's name as that of the killer, but how many of us, off the top of our head, could name one child that was murdered that day? If it were up to me, these killers would remain unknown and go to their grave without the media hype and sensationalism that undoubtedly fuels the imagination of the next would-be mass murderer.

As many here discussed, there is no readily available solution to these indiscriminate acts of violence. I wish I had an answer, but I don't. You can't fix crazy.
Click to expand...
YES!

Cheers,

R.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
There is nothing safe about guns. Period.

I just can't get around why people feel that by carrying a lethal weapon, they are safe. It is an object that has been designed to end life. That is it's primary purpose, not protection.
Click to expand...

Guns were used as tools to get food in the early days. It was a means of survival.

That being said, it is sad when crazy people take innocent lives regardless of the tools used(cars, bats, guns, stomp to the back of the head onto concrete. No matter how tragic, those must be accepted as part of free society.

Punish the people who do the crime, not innocent law abiding people.

I guess I should rate an assault weapon that fires 800 rounds/min as I served my country and have been trained on how to safely use guns.
 
tbarker13 said:
The problem with this line of thought is that it can be used to invalidate the entire constitution. It was written more than 200 years ago. There is very little in our world that the people in the 1700s envisioned.
But just because Thomas Jefferson failed to predict the Internet, that doesn't mean he didn't intend for it to be covered by the First Amendment.

It's also an argument that's been invalidated by the US Supreme Court, which has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right. Unless that body reverses itself, the issue is settled.
Click to expand...

The written constitution is at the heart of the problem of the insollubility of this debate. It is basically inflexible and fundamentalist to be so tied to a single and ancient text. Constitutional scholars in the United States tie themselves in the same types of etymological knots as those Islamic scholars and jurists who forge Sharia through interpreting the Quran. I am sure that the fairly rigid constitutional settlement of the US, forged in war and revolution, today contributes to the sclerosis and lack of dynamism in US
politics. It is a peculiar side effect of this constitutional settlement that it confers legitimacy on 'pro gun' arguments. Notwithstanding the huge number of guns in circulation in the US, nor the repeated and tragic acts of violence that play out each year in the US, it is silly to suppose that the federal government has anything other than an effective monopoly on poltical violence. In that regard the right to bear arms today fails because it really is not an assurance of any person's liberty (drone wars, guantanamo etc). Nor does it serve as an effective check on any sort of external threat (Pearl Harbor, 9/11).

The power of America's judiciary is also startling. Capable of striking down legislation on grounds of its 'constitutionality', this is quite some power over the legislature. It also belies the notion that sovereignty is in the hands of the people.

America is a great country. I enjoyed living their for two years. But it is certainly hobbled in certain respects by a constitutional settlement which, however expedient in its infancy, is rather less fit for purpose today.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Dave,

Maybe. But I see the ammo problem as more solvable than the gun problem. I'm not talking about collecting ready-to-fire rounds (not just bullets) from those who already own 'em: as you say, it ain't gonna happen. I'm talking about making it even a little more difficult to buy 'em. In California in the early 90s I had to show my driver's license to buy black powder. But not for .44 magnum, .45 Colt...

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should tax the hell out of gasoline with lets say a $5/gallon tax to pay for road improvement and hospital bills for those who get injured driving---but only to those who were not speeding.


Good thing the California ammunition tax bill was shut down.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2062_bill_20080219_introduced.html
 
Ok.. now this is getting a bit more interesting. . . .
Popcorn_02_Stephen_Colbert.gif


Dave
 
Riverman said:
America is a great country. I enjoyed living their for two years. But it is certainly hobbled in certain respects by a constitutional settlement which, however expedient in its infancy, is rather less fit for purpose today.
Click to expand...

If the 2nd Amendment is not fit for present day use, then they need to remove the bill of rights judicially.
 
E__WOK said:
Every firearm purchased or transferred in my state is registered.
Click to expand...

In my country (Bulgaria) if you want to posses a weapon as a private person you should reason your demand. Then you pass qualification, mental tests, then you can buy 1 gun (pistol or revolver) (not sub-machine) . You should have a special place to lock it and the ammunition is restricted to minimum enough for self defence. After buying the gun passes ballistic test and along with it serial numbers is recorded in th police. You cannot wear it freely, you cannot fire it outside ( only in defined places like shooting clubs). The gun is your personal responsibility and if something happens with it it's your ''s on fire. Have in mind that we have a long lasting tradition in having guns for protection for centuries and most of the time we were not allowed to posses firearms. We went through several wars in 20-th century and nearly every house did have rifle. The same could be sad for all Europe countries. So, be interested in history. It is all passed.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Sounds reasonable. Then you could afford a national heath service.
Click to expand...

Roger, keep it up and people will say you're sounding like a Commu...err.. Sociali.... Liber... umm... ya.. it doesn't matter how you slice it to some folks :D


Cheers,
Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom