for the record (re: guns thread)

Well put nemesis. I, for one, agree completely. I have a hard time agreeing with this however. I am sure that any rational person would admit that once the "dots are connected" its quite obvious that a shift in our culture is the root cause for increased gun violence. What is the proposal being put forth? How do we reach the end goal of eliminating gun violence?Option One?

• Ban violence on television, movies, internet, and videogames
• Ban suggestive writing in books and music that may lead people to violence
• Increase funding towards pharmaceuticals, counseling , and preventative measures
• Attempt to create a cultural shift towards less democratic society with the sole intent of reducing gun violence.

Option Two?

• Heavier restrictions on gun control
• Attempt to create a better society as we have done for thousands of years - this will be a slow process.

Though I feel you are right that our culture is to blame, I do not feel that restricting peoples freedom of expression in a democracy is the best way to reduce gun violence. Taking away what I feel is our basic human rights is a much bigger pill to swallow than having to give up guns. That would be me exactly. I do support my personal right to watch violent movies, listen to violent music, and read violence in my books. I have no plans to blow anyone up or start shooting up schoolyards, blame my parents for teaching me the difference between right and wrong.Perhaps I am alone in thinking this. But rest assured when they come to take away my tv, music, computer, movies, and books - I will make sure ahead of time I have bought some guns.

As with the points nemesis made, I happen to agree with you. Excellent, lets get on with it. Where do you suggest we begin? The blame really lies on the seriously screwed up people in the world. If taking away their ak-47 is not an option, what should we do about them?As a side note - why exactly is owning a landmine, an envelope of anthrax, or a surface to air missle illegal?

Actually Jon, I am still waiting on a few answers regarding post 98. With all the debate going on I was going to just leave it. I would like to see the pro-gun position get right to the point however.I stated: And you responded: I am not sure if this is any sort of solution to the issues involved. I gather that you do support gun control as much as you support guard rails near dangerous areas on the nations highways. This does not seem to support your position, nor does it create a solution.I do have an argument against your position.You stated in message 99 to Modulous: How do you propose to do this? You say its the same as not letting a three year old have matches? Its not even close! From day to day how can you, or anyone else begin to predict who is going to wake up and decide to go mental? This hardly seems like a solution, more like a statement of the obvious. Why then are landmines illegal if they can simply get them on the black market? What is the difference? Why is it nessesary to defend one weapon capable of multiple casualties, but not another?Why does the government monitor and track large purchaces of fertilizer? Do I not have the right to buy as much as I want without having to worry about goverment involvement? I am not a criminal, its not my fault crazy people may decide to use it to start leveling buildings. I do not see protests defending fertilizer purchaces. Landmines, anthrax, rpg's, plastic explosives - none of these bans have resulted in your ire. Why does talking about banning an ak-47 get peoples blood pressure up?A proposed solution is all I am asking for. Once its in the works then I see no reason why all weapons could not be legalized. Edited by Vacate, : Clarity

That is possible The solutions you proposed in that same paragraph, to me, sound like a valid method at reducing the number of *ahem* nutjobs with uzi's. This is the bottom line of the problem however. We can easily assume that a 3 year old does not have the knowledge to stay safe, as a result persons of higher (more stable?) brain development steps in to ensure his or her safety. Your example works for both sides of this issue - as I propose to also limit what less stable people should be able to possess.To make things clear on my side, I don't think that people should be disarmed of hunting rifles; and due to crime rates in the U.S. I can also grudgingly accept the need for handguns. All that I wish to put down on the table is the banning of fully automatic weapons, stockpiles of weapons, and use of armor piercing rounds. I cant directly show you, I can however assure you that if every citizen of the United States possessed 10 ak-47's, 2 apache helicopters, and 4 cruise missles they would still not have the power to overthrow the U.S. military. As an example I point to Afganistan, where the Taliban has had little success in overthrowing the U.S.Though I cannot show that landmines and guns are both equal in securing a free state, I do not think that citizens with fully automatic rifles are equal (not even comparable) to the training and technology available to the strongest military in the world. Have you watched the movie "blackhawk down"? The numbers of casualties from both sides reflect the importance of training.The second amendment may protect the possesion of firearms, but why is it so hard to see that perhaps some things are meant to be changed with time? The reality of the situation is there is no difference in the ease of a landmine and an ak-47 to take lives - one just happens to be called a "gun" and therefore protected under the amendment. In the future what will fit within the category of "gun"? With the progress of military technology who can say what kind of devastation may be created from a handheld device that your forefathers never would have imagined.When is enough going to be enough? I wont spew a bunch of hypotheticals about what the future may hold for guns. Take a look at what they where shooting at the time the constitution was drafted - and then think where it might be in the next hundred years.This thread, and the one that came before show that there is already a great debate about this very topic. I wonder what examples our grandchildren may have on the "anti-gun" side?*cut short - have to go*

1- Are they restricted enough? If people cannot get a hold of them then what is this thread about? 2- A large quantity of weapons. Aka - more than anyone could claim is needed to defend their homes from criminals.3- Since they have a name for them, I assume that normal ammunition cannot pierce armor. I have never seen them so I am not sure what the difference could be. (These guys had them - Bank Robbers)***Its interesting that they also mentioned the Symbionese Liberation Army gunfight in 1974. Part of the reason for L.A. creating the S.W.A.T. team was because more and more often the criminals had better weapons than the police. (modern marvels tv episode about swat teams)

That was what I was taking about. I blame the media, thanks for some clarity on that. That is very true, but another way to look at it is that the criminals generally are better armed than the police. With the introduction of Swat teams however police now can get the upper hand with better training and technology.