Guns

[wareric11]

I will just say I have fun shooting and hunting that is why I like guns. Not everyone needs to agree with me. Just don't take away a hobby of mine please. I understand it is dangerous but a lot of hobbies can be.

 

[A2K78]

I have lived in the USA since 1994 and have never ever felt more free than the day I arrived here.

Freedom to choose and associate and prosper at my pace and freedom to legally defend myself if need be - And you know what? - the 300 million guns never bothered me ever. I don't have burglar bars on my house, I don't have a razor wire topped wall around my house - hell I sometimes don't even lock my cars out in the driveway.

That was not an option in South Africa, even in 1994.

Oh, and remember the USA is still the only place on earth where the people have explicitly given the consent to govern to the government while having said government in check by a centuries old Constitution that enumerates the rights of the people while explicitly restricting the power of the government.

As someone who came from another country also, I wish it was really truly the case to believe that America is a free place when in reality its not. This when you consider the fact that you have a government that continue to show a gross disregard for freedom of association, private property and and most importantly the right of individuals to deal privately with each other oppose to the government meddling in some manner.

That said I'm quite sure if the founders were around today they'll be shocked to see a country far, far removed from the one they created.

Right now Switzerland is far more freer than America.

While the lack of guns correlates with increased crime in the UK, it's far from the only factor to consider if you're going to make a comparison. I don't see the relevance between the homicide rates and the other rates.

Given the fact the UK has a poor record in tracking crime(like how its here in America) I'm more than willing to bets there are tons of gun-related crimes/indcidents what aren't reported, let alone underreported like Australia. There mere fact that the Guardian called out the UK's system is quite shocking:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/15/police-crime-figures-status-claims-fiddling

That said I'm quite sure the rate/frequency of violent crimes, those committed with guns in particular is much higher than what we've been told.

 

[Michael88]

Does the reasoning matter? People still die. The threat posed to me in my life by guns is essentially non existent. I'm at risk of death by car nearly every day though.

The problem is, most people think like that and then it really happens. Most people don't have a working fire extinguisher, the chances of a cable fire is very minimal but it happens every day somwhere, just as armed home robberies happen every single day.

I have a fire extinguisher and I always check it for pressure in case I need it. Because when I need it I NEED IT. I don't see why it should be any different with my home defense gun.

In my opinion people who don't prepare for emergencies which happen every single day all around the world are fools, and if hey have families and people they are responsible for they are even worse.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I don't see the relevance between the homicide rates and the other rates.

You lot seem to be using guns as a way of killing more of yourselves than we manage to find other ways to do it in the UK, if this isn't offset by a similarly proportional decrease in the amount in other serious crime then I'd have to wonder why you'd put up with it. Hell, even the stunningly informative gunfacts.info website admits there's no point in comparing gun crime in the US and UK (somewhere in the middle of many paragraphs comparing gun crime in the US and UK).

You're right though, given the amount of bull-crap biased propaganda out there and the differences in reporting, there are many more factors to consider than I feel the need to do right now. Getting shoved in a supermarket counts as violent crime over here, given that a gun is only a defence (deterrent) if you are prepared to use it, the idea that a gun would cut down on violent crime here signifies that people would be prepared to kill others over a trivial shove, and to my mind that's borderline psychopathic behavior. Noctunralgrey above admits his intention is to kill if someone threatens his family, maybe that's understandable... maybe that's someone saying they will kill someone because of their words because someone wrote down it was okay for them to do so.

All seems crazy to me. As I indicated above, I understand the issue with removing guns from the US, and I don't see that situation changing, so I wouldn't expect you to give up your gun - and I doubt that matters either way.

 

[Dennisch]

Are there numbers available, preferably non biased, of the gun related crimes in the US that show that the weapon used was legally obtained or not?

 

[Swagger897]

Are there numbers available, preferably non biased, of the gun related crimes in the US that show that the weapon used was legally obtained or not?

I can't remember but I think the FBI has that...

 

[RC45]

As someone who came from another country also, I wish it was really truly the case to believe that America is a free place when in reality its not. This when you consider the fact that you have a government that continue to show a gross disregard for freedom of association, private property and and most importantly the right of individuals to deal privately with each other oppose to the government meddling in some manner.

That said I'm quite sure if the founders were around today they'll be shocked to see a country far, far removed from the one they created.

Right now Switzerland is far more freer than America.

I do agree with you that since I arrived I have observed those base freedoms eroded by excessive legislation and taxation - but that nuance is really for a different discussion.

My problem with Switzerland is that it is landlocked in Europe - and is too small. I like the vast openness of the USA, openness that is just a car trip away.

 

[LeMansAid]

my firearm represents my freedom

I'll whip this gem out again for any of those who missed it.

I hope you realize that our European culture is very different from yours. We(*) have different mindsets, different values, a different take on what freedom is. To us freedom does not mean that everyone is allowed to carry a gun at all times. To us freedom means to live in a society where there is no need for such a thing. A society where the biggest danger we face in our daily lives, is to cross the street. But we do expect from our governments that they do their utmost best to protect us from harm, with the limited resources we grant them as voters and taxpayer. And we accept that that is not enough to protect us from all attacks. To us a society where everyone walks around with a gun, would feel like a prison. We would not feel free.

(*) Of course not all Europeans share these sentiments.

@nocturnalgrey I think that's really quite silly. I own some pretty great stuff, but I can't think of any possession that could remotely represent my freedom - and I would keel over in laughter if any of my gun owning friends said what you stated there.

Right now Switzerland is far more freer than America.

And my Swiss friends, they just never stop banging on about how their guns represent their freedom.

 

[RC45]

You lot seem to be using guns as a way of killing more of yourselves than we manage to find other ways to do it in the UK, if this isn't offset by a similarly proportional decrease in the amount in other serious crime then I'd have to wonder why you'd put up with it. Hell, even the stunningly informative gunfacts.info website admits there's no point in comparing gun crime in the US and UK (somewhere in the middle of many paragraphs comparing gun crime in the US and UK).

You're right though, given the amount of bull-crap biased propaganda out there and the differences in reporting, there are many more factors to consider than I feel the need to do right now. Getting shoved in a supermarket counts as violent crime over here, given that a gun is only a defence (deterrent) if you are prepared to use it, the idea that a gun would cut down on violent crime here signifies that people would be prepared to kill others over a trivial shove, and to my mind that's borderline psychopathic behavior. Noctunralgrey above admits his intention is to kill if someone threatens his family, maybe that's understandable... maybe that's someone saying they will kill someone because of their words because someone wrote down it was okay for them to do so.

All seems crazy to me. As I indicated above, I understand the issue with removing guns from the US, and I don't see that situation changing, so I wouldn't expect you to give up your gun - and I doubt that matters either way.

Your entire premise is incorrect.

The severe penalties for simply brandishing a weapon at let, alone killing someone already mean that no sane legally concealed gun carrying person will respond to a simple shove in the supermarket with a gun, unless the shove was part of a deadly attack - in which case why should the victim just stand there and be attacked and possibly killed?

You see if I pulled my gun to shoot someone in the supermarket that simply shoved me, I would go to jail - even in Texas, unless the shove was part of a deadly attack launched at me. It is a crime to pull my gun and shoot someone unless they are trying to kill me (paraphrased for simplicity since I may also use deadly force to defend property etc. here).

You see, I am law abiding, therefore I abide by the laws of the land. The law is very specific about when and how I may use deadly force, I intent to fully comply with these laws already in place and I do.

The people killing each other by the thousands each year are ghetto residents. These people ALREADY ignore existing laws, whether armed or not. These are the folks that would shoot each other because of a shove - hell they shoot each other over perceived verbal insults. They shoot each other for disrespecting each other - they shoot each other for looking at each other.

These are primarily black on black and hispanic on hispanic gang related gun attacks that so far outnumber the rest of the so-called "mass shootings" that it is truly shocking.

Again, your entire premise is incorrect. The world you seem to imagine where LAW abiding people kill each other over a shove does not exist.

Criminally intent gang bangers in ghettos on the other hand DO live like this.

You need to take your discussion to THEM.

I on the other hand will reserve using legal deadly force against these ghetto criminals if they try attack me or my family.

 

[Exorcet]

You lot seem to be using guns as a way of killing more of yourselves than we manage to find other ways to do it in the UK, if this isn't offset by a similarly proportional decrease in the amount in other serious crime then I'd have to wonder why you'd put up with it. Hell, even the stunningly informative gunfacts.info website admits there's no point in comparing gun crime in the US and UK (somewhere in the middle of many paragraphs comparing gun crime in the US and UK).

I'm more interested in "fairness" than safety. My safety is my own concern, not the concern of others. No one should be forced to change their life to make me safe. With that comes free reign for people to do whatever they want so long as they don't harm anyone else. I don't care so much about guns, they are one of the sticking points in the argument for freedom though in that people are sometimes afraid enough of them to suddenly think they have the right to tell other people how to live. A legally purchased firearm bought by someone with no criminal record could be used to kill or maim me for life, and I'd argue all out against anyone who wanted to create a gun ban law with my name on it. The same would go for cars, or drugs, or bombs, or improperly trained doctors, etc. The gun topic is more of a convenient case study than anything else.

You're right though, given the amount of bull-crap biased propaganda out there and the differences in reporting, there are many more factors to consider than I feel the need to do right now. Getting shoved in a supermarket counts as violent crime over here, given that a gun is only a defence (deterrent) if you are prepared to use it, the idea that a gun would cut down on violent crime here signifies that people would be prepared to kill others over a trivial shove, and to my mind that's borderline psychopathic behavior. Noctunralgrey above admits his intention is to kill if someone threatens his family, maybe that's understandable... maybe that's someone saying they will kill someone because of their words because someone wrote down it was okay for them to do so.

A gun is a defense whether you're willing to use it or not, because the person that would be your attacker doesn't know your intent and might not even know if you're carrying one.

All seems crazy to me.

As to me does pointing the finger at guns when there is a society full of killers going on day in day out apparently. Society wanting to kill itself is strange and concerning.

I see this is a rhetorical question, because to you only the latter will probably make sense. but I'd like to answer it anyway. I hope you realize that our European culture is very different from yours. We(*) have different mindsets, different values, a different take on what freedom is. To us freedom does not mean that everyone is allowed to carry a gun at all times. To us freedom means to live in a society where there is no need for such a thing. A society where the biggest danger we face in our daily lives, is to cross the street. But we do expect from our governments that they do their utmost best to protect us from harm, with the limited resources we grant them as voters and taxpayer. And we accept that that is not enough to protect us from all attacks. To us a society where everyone walks around with a gun, would feel like a prison. We would not feel free.

(*) Of course not all Europeans share these sentiments.

I find this post strange. Why would you want to give guns to people you don't trust?

I don't concern myself much with cultural differences anyway given that the US culture I was exposed to leaned toward anti-gun. I went along with it because it was what I was told. I changed my mind when I thought for myself. Not implying anything, just explaining my history.

 

[Rallywagon]

I don't know of any single person nor any group that advocates for continuing with a violent society. Name one if you dare. It's the method or reducing or eliminating violence and violent tendencies that we disagree on.

I disagree and point to popular media, the high amount of mass killings and the ease of which "peaceful" people will jump to violence as my citation. A high majority of video games rely on violence of some sort, be it cartoonish or realistic, this also goes along with board, table top and card games. So much of our day time TV as well. Crime shows, reality tv, most HBO and Cinemax series. In our music. constantly on the news. In religion. Everyday we bombard ourselves in violence. Even if you aren't doing it on purpose there is no avoiding it.
It is far far from being "the medthod of reducing or eliminating violence." And perhaps there is a media aspect to it. But the fact of the matter. We buy violence up by the bucket loads. Go to walmart, take a trip down the toy isle and tell me how many toys glorify violence in some way? People may say they want peace. Maybe they even believe it. But a lot of those same people pay a premium price to be bathed in it. Myself included.
Being inundated with so much violence has the effect of desensitization. Add in a hateful pastor such as this guy and you will find ordinary people will do extraordinarily evil things to other people.

 

[Exorcet]

I disagree and point to popular media, the high amount of mass killings and the ease of which "peaceful" people will jump to violence as my citation. A high majority of video games rely on violence of some sort, be it cartoonish or realistic, this also goes along with board, table top and card games. So much of our day time TV as well. Crime shows, reality tv, most HBO and Cinemax series. In our music. constantly on the news. In religion. Everyday we bombard ourselves in violence. Even if you aren't doing it on purpose there is no avoiding it.
It is far far from being "the medthod of reducing or eliminating violence." And perhaps there is a media aspect to it. But the fact of the matter. We buy violence up by the bucket loads. Go to walmart, take a trip down the toy isle and tell me how many toys glorify violence in some way? People may say they want peace. Maybe they even believe it. But a lot of those same people pay a premium price to be bathed in it. Myself included.
Being inundated with so much violence has the effect of desensitization. Add in a hateful pastor such as this guy and you will find ordinary people will do extraordinarily evil things to other people.

I don't think being exposed with violence is much of a bad influence, it may even be good in that it gives us a risk free way of experiencing and thinking about these things. The lines between fictional reality are very clear when it comes to things like games and movies I don't see why over the top gore in video games or something would cause similar things in reality. What seems more likely to me is that we appreciate the opportunity to enjoy outlandish things in a way that doesn't hurt other people.

 

[Rallywagon]

I don't think being exposed with violence is much of a bad influence, it may even be good in that it gives us a risk free way of experiencing and thinking about these things. The lines between fictional reality are very clear when it comes to things like games and movies I don't see why over the top gore in video games or something would cause similar things in reality. What seems more likely to me is that we appreciate the opportunity to enjoy outlandish things in a way that doesn't hurt other people.

Right, well, I dont expect to dissuade you, another downside of us humans is we stubbornly latch on to the notions we build and dont usually change our minds on them. However, lots of research is out there that proves you wrong. Lots.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
and on and on. Again, I dont pretend to think you will take any of that into consideration. But it really really flies in the face of what you just said. Do you have evidence as such to the contrary?

 

[Swagger897]

The lines between fictional reality are very clear when it comes to things like games and movies I don't see why over the top gore in video games or something would cause similar things in reality.

See, that's the problem, those who don't/can't distinguish that is the problem, then you have radicalization.


I'm all for filling a guy up with lead in a game, but I can distinguish the difference between game and fiction.

 

[Exorcet]

links

I looked at one and five. The mentions a "sole outlier" when it comes to research but does not name this person. A quick search finds a few studies that don't find a link to violence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...t-video-games-and-youth-violence-9851613.html

^ source linked: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12129/full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ent-video-games-make-children-aggressive.html

http://www.webmd.com/children/news/20150403/violent-video-games-dont-influence-kids-behavior-study

The second two mention the same person, though the first with source was a study headed by someone else.

Then I found this article mentioning the wide spread of results from various studies and links to these studies:

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...ce/value-violent-video-games-research-roundup

It would seem that there isn't really a consensus in research. My previous comment was based on my own experience and reasoning. Even when I watched violent movies and such when I was young I found it quite easy to laugh at an actor trying to convince me that someone was dying while at the same time I could understand the seriousness of such an issue in reality. Small sample and no guarantee of correctness of course, but that would indicate that if there is a trend, it might not be universal.

 

[Rallywagon]

I looked at one and five. The mentions a "sole outlier" when it comes to research but does not name this person. A quick search finds a few studies that don't find a link to violence:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...t-video-games-and-youth-violence-9851613.html

^ source linked: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12129/full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...ent-video-games-make-children-aggressive.html

http://www.webmd.com/children/news/20150403/violent-video-games-dont-influence-kids-behavior-study

The second two mention the same person, though the first with source was a study headed by someone else.

Then I found this article mentioning the wide spread of results from various studies and links to these studies:

http://journalistsresource.org/stud...ce/value-violent-video-games-research-roundup

It would seem that there isn't really a consensus in research. My previous comment was based on my own experience and reasoning. Even when I watched violent movies and such when I was young I found it quite easy to laugh at an actor trying to convince me that someone was dying while at the same time I could understand the seriousness of such an issue in reality. Small sample and no guarantee of correctness of course, but that would indicate that if there is a trend, it might not be universal.

Idk man. My personal experience aside, I just read the news for confirmation on what I stated. We have more than one mass shooting in America a day. I know, its a big place, but to say its a peaceful place is a crock.

 

[Exorcet]

Idk man. My personal experience aside, I just read the news for confirmation on what I stated. We have more than one mass shooting in America a day. I know, its a big place, but to say its a peaceful place is a crock.

Well I suppose the definition of peaceful is up for debate. All I'm saying though is that I'm not convinced that exposure to fake violence breeds real violence. There is violence is the US no doubt, but not so much that anyone I know is personally affected. If we go with 1000 people killed each day for a year, your chance of being involved is around .1%. With the US having half the population of Europe by itself, a higher number of crimes is expected all else equal. Also consider that violent games and movies are pretty much a global occurrence, so looking at one country isn't going to be conclusive.

 

[Rallywagon]

No, I don't think there is much debate to the term peaceful. It's a pretty straightforward conecpt.
I am glad you've not been effected by violence. I've not been so fortunate, and neither have many that I know. That could be a difference in our outlooks. And no, I don't think it an America only concept. But, I was taking an American stance as that is where I was coming from and addressing in my first post. I also will continue to disagree with you on the subject of desensitization to and glorification of violence and death in our societies, be it through media, games, religion, what have you, not having an effect on society as a whole. I'm glad it hasn't effected you, but I don't feel that makes you right.

 

[FoolKiller]

@Rallywagon, you cannot look at what we consume in popular fictional media and compare it to reality. Fiction is escapism. We enjoy it because it gives us an experience more exciting than reality.

Violent crime is down.

Gun homicide rates are down

We are not obsessed with true violence. I agree we might be becoming desensitized, but our news headlines reflect non-fictional violence while leaving the positivity for the back page or end of the news. I'm still not completely sold on us being desensitized, though. People confronted with real violence face-to-face don't walk away like nothing happened. We might be desensitized to hearing about violence, but there are enough PTSD cases in the US to tell me that desensitization is having little effect on our true human nature. True violence, real violence destroys us.

Sure, very specific areas and communities might see more violence than others, as you say you have, but that is anecdotal. If other people don't see violence like you have then maybe you should wonder why violence is prevalent for you, or where you live, but not for others and where they live.

 

[RC45]

No, I don't think there is much debate to the term peaceful. It's a pretty straightforward conecpt.
I am glad you've not been effected by violence. I've not been so fortunate, and neither have many that I know. That could be a difference in our outlooks. And no, I don't think it an America only concept. But, I was taking an American stance as that is where I was coming from and addressing in my first post. I also will continue to disagree with you on the subject of desensitization to and glorification of violence and death in our societies, be it through media, games, religion, what have you, not having an effect on society as a whole. I'm glad it hasn't effected you, but I don't feel that makes you right.

Are you saying you are predispose to violence, and this is because of TV, radio, books, movies, video games, films and board games?

Where you exposed to mood and behavior modification drugs as a kid? Ritalin? Lithium? Where you raised with a lack of discipline?

Or are you saying violence in the community has affected you?

If the former and you truly have a predisposition to violence then that is your issue and problem to handle and not something you need to project on the rest of the population - oh, and you should be sure to register with the government - that way you can be put on the "no fly, no drive, no gun, no knife, no procreate list".

If the latter, I am not sure what violence in the community affecting you has to do with other people being exposed to violent media.

 

[Rallywagon]

No, what I was saying there is that I've been a victim of violence, and I've had friends killed in violence. And that not everyone in this world has the luxury of not knowing violence.
My point though was not so much the predisposition to make violence, but more the acceptance of violence as a norm, thus allowing more violence to happen. Now you say violence is down, but now we are back to playing a game of statistics, which can easily be washed to skew towards one opinion or another.
For example:
Here are a whole lot of stats showing that mass killings, and deaths attributed too are on the rise, especially in the last couple of years. Also interesting to note is the correlation between the drop in homicides that almost exactly follows to drop in households with guns.
But, hey, you got your data, I have mine. At this point, I'm tired of arguing around in circles. I'm glad Exorcet you've not face violence, I hope that continues for you. It really changes your world view.

 

[RC45]

No, what I was saying there is that I've been a victim of violence, and I've had friends killed in violence. And that not everyone in this world has the luxury of not knowing violence.
My point though was not so much the predisposition to make violence, but more the acceptance of violence as a norm, thus allowing more violence to happen. Now you say violence is down, but now we are back to playing a game of statistics, which can easily be washed to skew towards one opinion or another.
For example:
Here are a whole lot of stats showing that mass killings, and deaths attributed too are on the rise, especially in the last couple of years. Also interesting to note is the correlation between the drop in homicides that almost exactly follows to drop in households with guns.
But, hey, you got your data, I have mine. At this point, I'm tired of arguing around in circles. I'm glad Exorcet you've not face violence, I hope that continues for you. It really changes your world view.

I know and have experienced violence. First hand.

I immigrated from South Africa in the mid 1990's. Every member of my family has faced either robbery, attempted rape, been shot etc.

My father shot at point blank range in the stomach by car-jackers in broad daylight as they stole his Audi, he killed one of them with return gun fire - one of my sisters was attacked by 2 black thugs in broad daylight - they dragged her into a corn field, thankfully her screams alerted a passerby and they where chased off by the gun wielding good guy.

My parents house has been robbed both while they where in it and while they where out.

I was present at a terrorist bombing and helped pick up the body parts of victims and comforted survivors.

There is not a single person in South Africa that has not been touched by violence - this is the nature of life. We as a family have not resorted to crime, but have been the victims of criminal attack.

I think you have let yourself be consumed by the violence rather than rising above it. That is your challenge in life.

 

[Rallywagon]

Rc45. I have tosay, I am confused as to why you keep trying to draw this to a personal distinction. My posts where society directed, not aimed at personal accounts. I'm sorry you and yours have gone through what you have. But personal story's are anecdotal to the current debate. I am speaking of a societal scale. Not individual experience.
I also do not believe you are in a position to say what my situation in life is nor what consumes me. You do not know me personally.

 

[RC45]

Rc45. I have tosay, I am confused as to why you keep trying to draw this to a personal distinction. My posts where society directed, not aimed at personal accounts. I'm sorry you and yours have gone through what you have. But personal story's are anecdotal to the current debate. I am speaking of a societal scale. Not individual experience.
I also do not believe you are in a position to say what my situation in life is nor what consumes me. You do not know me personally.

I was letting you know that you are do not hold exclusivity on exposure to violence - and many people exposed to violence do not allow it to influence their lives negatively.

Society is a collection of personal individual experiences.

But you are all over the place here. Didn't you imply media violence makes people violent earlier? Then you commented on your own experience with violence, almost implying your situation is unique and others that don't know violence the way you don't really understand violence.

What is the actual point you are trying to make? That the USA is not a peaceful place?

By and large it is peaceful - the real daily violence is experienced in traditionally Democrat run inner cities. Detroit, Boston, L.A., New York, Chicago, D.C. - these locations are not peaceful and are the actual locations of all the daily mass shootings.

On the whole, the USA is a very peaceful place.

 

[NLxAROSA]

I don't believe you're interested in a real discussion.

And this is your response to a legitimate question? Oh, the irony. But typical.

To me, and millions of other law abiding US citizens, my firearm represents my freedom. No one will take my gun away, nor will I give up my right to bear arms.

Bingo. The same way owning my own car represents my freedom of movement.

I can't speak for others of course, but I don't want those rights taken away at all. At the same time I don't believe that arming eveyone to teeth is going to help.

 

[RC45]

And this is your response to a legitimate question? Oh, the irony. But typical.





I can't speak for others of course, but I don't want those rights taken away at all. At the same time I don't believe that arming eveyone to teeth is going to help.

Please explain - who being armed is not the answer? You don't want to arm everyone, then who do you not want to arm? Who do you want to arm? What is "armed to the teeth"? 1 gun, 3 guns, 11 guns?

I am honestly interested in your thought process.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Please explain - who being armed is not the answer? You don't want to arm everyone, then who do you not want to arm? Who do you want to arm? What is "armed to the teeth"? 1 gun, 3 guns, 11 guns?

I am honestly interested in your thought process.

My point is that if everybody is carrying arms all the time, you're also looking over your shoulder all the time, in constant fear, because you won't know who the good guys or the bad guys are. On top of that, it will start an arms race, with both sides getting increasingly stronger/more weapons, including the police. I have no problem if you own your personal stockpile or arsenal, I just don't think it's safe if everyone is going to bring that arsenal everywhere they go. Especially in the places you mentioned in your post before (Detroit, etc.).

For the record: I have lived in Georgia, USA (albeit not that long), so I am not unfamiliar with unrestrictive gun laws. As a matter of fact, almost everyone around owned one or more handguns and/or shotguns/rifles. But none of those felt particularly inclined to bring those anywhere they went.

As I explained before, I'm not on either side of the spectrum, but firm in the middle. Hope that helps.

 

[Rallywagon]

I was letting you know that you are do not hold exclusivity on exposure to violence - and many people exposed to violence do not allow it to influence their lives negatively.

Didn't say I did.

Society is a collection of personal individual experiences.

a personals singular experience is not indicative of societal norms.

But you are all over the place here. Didn't you imply media violence makes people violent earlier? Then you commented on your own experience with violence, almost implying your situation is unique and others that don't know violence the way you don't really understand violence.

I implied that as a society we are desensitizing to violence, and that yes, indeed, it can make some people act out in violence. The Colorado attack is evidence of this. It's called "stochastic terrorism."
The comment I made on my experience was in response to Exorcet making a claim that he's not had to deal with horrible violence, nor knows anyone who has. Now if you want to take me out of context you can go ahead and do so, but no where did I make the claim that dealing with violence is something only I've dealt with. The end of that quote is also quite antagonistic.

What is the actual point you are trying to make? That the USA is not a peaceful place?

my point is exactly what I said at the end of my original post on this thread.

By and large it is peaceful - the real daily violence is experienced in traditionally Democrat run inner cities. Detroit, Boston, L.A., New York, Chicago, D.C. - these locations are not peaceful and are the actual locations of all the daily mass shootings.

On the whole, the USA is a very peaceful place.

Democrat run cities or major cities in Republican ran states? I think only Cali in that list has a Dem for a Governor. I grew up in Detroit. Reagan with trickle down and the big three moving a large number of jobs to Mexico and Canada did more to kill the D than any democrat mayor. That is a different debate though.
Edit. Wait, what mass shooting in Detroit?
Edit2. Ahh, right. Gang violence back in June...

 

[RC45]

My point is that if everybody is carrying arms all the time, you're also looking over your shoulder all the time, in constant fear, because you won't know who the good guys or the bad guys are.

Not really. Think about this. This is already the case. Do you know who the criminals are right now? Do you know which criminals are armed or not? Remember, it is already illegal for felons and other folks with criminal records to own or carry firearms, so they are already breaking all laws - do you know who they are?

On top of that, it will start an arms race, with both sides getting increasingly stronger/more weapons, including the police. I have no problem if you own your personal stockpile or arsenal, I just don't think it's safe if everyone is going to bring that arsenal everywhere they go. Especially in the places you mentioned in your post before (Detroit, etc.).

There will be no arms race - as it is now, the US Constitution enumerates the right of everyone to bear arms and there is no arms race. The current laws limiting who may own/carry are actually unconstitutional, but that's another topic.

In Chicago, L.A., D.C., Boston, New York - cities with very strict and restrictive hand gun laws, criminals are already carrying - against the law. This is what criminals do. Why would you want to disarm all the people who are not criminals? What does that achieve?

Remember, gang bangers in these cities already carry illegally.

For the record: I have lived in Georgia, USA (albeit not that long), so I am not unfamiliar with unrestrictive gun laws. As a matter of fact, almost everyone around owned one or more handguns and/or shotguns/rifles. But none of those felt particularly inclined to bring those anywhere they went.

Not that you knew - if the person was legally carrying concealed, how would you have known? Just because the folks you associated with did not carry openly, did not mean they where not carrying concealed.

Criminals already carry illegally - should the law abiding not be allowed to also carry if they so choose?

Why should the criminal always have the upper hand? How is that right or fair?

As I explained before, I'm not on either side of the spectrum, but firm in the middle. Hope that helps.

In the middle - I guess that is ok as long as you don't find yourself facing down a gang banger who is illegally armed (with a gun or a knife or has 5 friends who want to rob you and beat you up and rape your girl friend.

 

[RC45]

my point is exactly what I said at the end of my original post on this thread.

This point shown below?

Being inundated with so much violence has the effect of desensitization. Add in a hateful pastor such as this guy and you will find ordinary people will do extraordinarily evil things to other people.

What about the many more millions that are exposed to the same media, violence etc.? None of them act out and are violent.

The net result of exposure to much violent media etc. is a factor of nurture more than nature, as many more people exposed to the same nature (violent media) with the appropriate nurture do not end up acting the way certain folks do that experience deficient nurture do.

We do not see 20 people a week killed in middle class suburbia the way we do in the inner cities.

Democrat run cities or major cities in Republican ran states? I think only Cali in that list has a Dem for a Governor. I grew up in Detroit. Reagan with trickle down and the big three moving a large number of jobs to Mexico and Canada did more to kill the D than any democrat mayor. That is a different debate though.
Edit. Wait, what mass shooting in Detroit?
Edit2. Ahh, right. Gang violence back in June...

Democrat run cities.

They are violent cesspools with crazy daily numbers of violent acts taking place in the ghetto inner city.