Gun Debate

mammasan

zstillings wrote:

I never called for the right to do anything to anyone. I am speaking about owning a firearm.

Along with all rights comes responsibility. I don't think that the right to own a fire arms should be revoked but as a society we should ensure that theindividual owning that fire arm is responsible enough to do so and I think that is where we are failing.

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

I am american (well.. half), I have lived and worked in america.. All I can say is that I am happy I am not raising my daughter there. As much as americans clamour about freedom, rights, etc. I believe Europe (well.. let's say the UK because I live here and raise my daughter here), is much more 'civilized' and 'free' than the US. We have a lot less constraints and paranoia... This is not America bashing.. just an observation..

Did you ever notice how people in America aren't constantly demanding that Britain allow guns? This isn't Britain bashing....just an observation.

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe...you sound proud of that.

Maybe we should have kept slavery. We had it before, right? If anything, I guess we should have made more people slaves.

Why would I be proud of a fact? Laws are there, to be observed, to be looked at and to be changed if necessary. That's why we elect our governments - use your vote to change the law. But as a citizen of a country, we by default agree to abide by those laws.... simple. Not that I for or against it... it's just being part of society.....

Your slavery remark is downright stupid.... here we are clamouring for the US to change their gun laws and you are telling I am inferring we keep all the bad laws... :rolleyes:

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

Did you ever notice how people in America aren't constantly demanding that Britain allow guns? This isn't Britain bashing....just an observation.

again.. silly repartie... why would we want crime at the level of the US? :rolleyes:

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

Why would I be proud of a fact? Laws are there, to be observed, to be looked at and to be changed if necessary. That's why we elect our governments - use your vote to change the law. But as a citizen of a country, we by default agree to abide by those laws.... simple. Not that I for or against it... it's just being part of society.....

You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.

Your slavery remark is downright stupid.... here we are clamouring for the US to change their gun laws and you are telling I am inferring we keep all the bad laws... :rolleyes:

You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

Did you ever notice how people in America aren't constantly demanding that Britain allow guns? This isn't Britain bashing....just an observation.

OK, next time there is a mass killing with authorised guns in the UK feel free to try and have a constructive debate with us about our gun laws, I hope it will be a long long time in coming...

floyd1975

mammasan wrote:

Along with all rights comes responsibility. I don't think that the right to own a fire arms should be revoked but as a society we should ensure that theindividual owning that fire arm is responsible enough to do so and I think that is where we are failing.

I absolutely agree with you. I believe in a basic safety course for all gun owners at the expense of the owners. There should be no government cost associated with these courses.

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

again.. silly repartie... why would we want crime at the level of the US? :rolleyes:

What someone wants seems to be rather irrelevant to your arguments.

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.



You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.

You do like the sound of your own voice, don't you? (Or the view of your own words?)....

jeffbr

UKDave wrote:

Of course people will always kill each other but why arm them with the most effective one on one killing machine ever invented?

Don't try and make yourself out to be macho by carrying a gun, it's pathetic, and of course I would defend myself, your comments are ridiculous, grow up...

I don't carry a gun. I do own a gun. And you considered it 'escalation' to defend myself. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

mammasan

zstillings wrote:

I absolutely agree with you. I believe in a basic safety course for all gun owners at the expense of the owners. There should be no government cost associated with these courses.

Absolutely but I would go a step further than just safety courses. To get into some schools you need letters of recommendation. To get a job you need referrals from previous employers and co-workers. Why not have the same to own a weapon?

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

OK, next time there is a mass killing with authorised guns in the UK feel free to try and have a constructive debate with us about our gun laws, I hope it will be a long long time in coming...

Perhaps we should be calling on Britain to ban medicines and doctors then, since that's where your lass "mass killing" came from, I believe. But since you only have a few hundred thousand "authorized" guns in your nation, I doubt you'll have many mass killings with guns.

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

You do like the sound of your own voice, don't you? (Or the view of your own words?)....

Both. Thanks for asking. Neither question, however, responds to the point I made.

UKDave

jeffbr wrote:

I don't carry a gun. I do own a gun. And you considered it 'escalation' to defend myself. If you don't want the answer, don't ask the question.

so are you saying if you start a debate you should expect stupid comments? ok, I guess so...

redrock

farfromglorified wrote:

Both. Thanks for asking. Neither question, however, responds to the point I made.

You made a point?

UKDave

farfromglorified wrote:

Perhaps we should be calling on Britain to ban medicines and doctors then, since that's where your lass "mass killing" came from, I believe. But since you only have a few hundred thousand "authorized" guns in your nation, I doubt you'll have many mass killings with guns.

:rolleyes: this just gets weirder... ban medecines and doctors from what? from who?

...and precisely the point, I wouldn't rule out the possibility but shouldn't everything be done to minimise it?

farfromglorified

redrock wrote:

You made a point?

Two actually:

1. You cannot "by default" agree to something. That's an anti-concept and makes absolutely zero sense.

2. You were justifying a law limiting the exchange of guns based on the fact that similar laws exist. Precedent is the last thing you want to introduce into a philosophical or moral argument.

The post is here:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=4358371&postcount=426

if you'd like to review it.

redrock

Well.. as I thought at the beginning.. this debate will just go in circles with the same arguments repeated over and over again.....

I'm out of it.... I'm hoping there will not be cause for another debate as this one but somehow, I'm pessimistic.....

farfromglorified

UKDave wrote:

:rolleyes: this just gets weirder... ban medecines and doctors from what? from who?

Everyone except the government, apparently. I mean, you had a private doctor killing off patients. This simply cannot be allowed. Therefore, only the government should be allowed to dispense medicine and medical services.

...and precisely the point, I wouldn't rule out the possibility but shouldn't everything be done to minimise it?

No. "Everything" would include euthanizing everyone in this country. That would reduce gun violence to zero. The cost, however, would be too high. So no, we shouldn't do "everything" to minimize it.

jeffbr

UKDave wrote:

so are you saying if you start a debate you should expect stupid comments? ok, I guess so...

You should expect comments commensurate with the tone of the debate, I suppose. As they say, it takes two to tango.