Why not just start a thread that says “The NRA sucks”. It would have about as much logic and content as this one.
While I was growing up my father exposed me to gun culture. The good one. The one that teaches you respect, not fear of guns. Taught me deep respect of golden safety rules, took me hunting, target shooting. He was a gun collector, a sports hunter, and he even made a couple of single-shooters himself.
Over the years my own interest faded, to almost nothing, but I’m thankfull for the kind of insight and philosohy he gave me on the relationship of man and weapon. I’m not claiming any special mumbojumbo spirituality or lifestyle emanating from guns. At the very core, the philosophy is very practical, and maybe can be reduced to this: “Mortal weapons have been around for millennia. They will probably be around for a few more millenia. Learn not to shoot yourself in the foot”
Having said aaall of that. I’m guessing it might be time for the US to re-examine it’s attitude to guns and violence.
Take it down a notch, or three.
Gun availability IS a factor in spur of the moment killings. I see it almost every other day in my own country, which has rather stricter laws than the US.
The so called Gun Machos… pretty common. Without a gun they are pussies… way too common here too.
Yee-Hoo! Ain’t nuthin’ lahk gowin’ a fault shakin’. If’n y’all can hit them geologic faults jes raht!
Have a 12-pack first.
Oh well then. :rolleyes:
The US is the only country to twice go to the UN to authorize military action (Korean War, Gulf War I). This obviously proves they are responisble members of the international community compared to everyone else. Are we having fun with these daft conclusions yet?
Huh?
I’m simply pointing out that there is no reason to continue to believe in the false assumption that the US is a responsible nation.
I define “responsible” as someone who is aware and caring of the consequence of his actions, not only for himself, but for his equals, his peers, his neighbours.
The hollywood marketed illusion of the great paternal nation, the “protector of the free world”, is just that, a dangerous illussion.
Enough already.
So you admit the stricter laws haven’t stopped violent crime. Maybe if more people could defend themselves, crime would go down eh? Ever think of that?
Well, what would that imply? A gun in every household?
I recall a police chief (in my country) speaking on television a few months ago. He mentioned that when in Argentina there was a rise in household ownership of guns, what followed was that criminals started being way more violent in their assaults. Killing their victims instead of tying them up.
To tell you the truth, I don’t pretend to know the answer.
I do know that private citizens and guns are not going to be separated anytime soon in the US. So, being that the case, one obvious way to go is , as always, education.
Why oh why is it that movies in which dozens of people die from gunfire can pass as comedies that even minors can see, while on the other hand a love story with a couple of sex scenes is only apt for adults.
Also, I’ve always been a bit shocked at the way most movie actors, villains or heroes alike, handle their firearms.
They usually break every safety rule in the book. Sometime, characters point their guns at each other for fun, or comedic effect. I find that a bit on the obscene side. Maybe some awareness on this issue might do some good.
Watcha think?
I don’t get it, guys. I thought the OP was quite nice. Allthough I have to admit, the discussion seems to go nowhere. So what’s the strawmen-argument all about? After all noone is forced to reply if he doesn’t like it.
I put this wrong.
Whenever here some kid walks into his school to shoot a hated teacher, people will cry out: Where did he get the gun from? In the US the answer is usually easy: From his fathers gun cabinet. So the point is: It’s not so much wackos buying a gun to go on a rampage but it’s sort of ordinary people who suddenly blow a fuse. And the more guns are around, the easier they will get one once they go amok. I simply belive, the world is a safer place the less fire-arms are around.
Ok, last post by me on this.
I’m pointing out you haven’t proved a thing. My daft argument about the US being more responsible than the rest of the world because they went to the UN twice to authorize military force is just as valid. No one else has ever gone to the UN so the US must be more responsible in its use of military force.
The use of 2 atomic weapons at the end of a world war is a poor set of points to draw conclusions from. No one else had them so we have no idea how responsible compared to others the US could’ve been.
The fact that they have either the first or second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, have never used them since in war or peace time, have a secure launch authorization procedure, and can account for all their weapons seems to imply a certain level of responsibility not found in other wannabe nuclear powers.
This is - thank god - true!
The remark of ChaosGod on responsibilty probably doesn’t refer to nuclear weapons but to recent history.
Let’s see if I can help you.
Disagree. The OP was rude and ignorant. It’s unabashed NRA bashing with no substance.
That’s the fault of the OP. There’s nothing to debate.
Your first post to this thread contains one outright falsehood and one strawman argument.
This is factually incorrect. The US doesn’t allow “any wacko” to buy a gun. Nor does the NRA argue for such a thing.
This is a straw man argument. The NRA’s position on automatic weapons is obviously unknown to you so you make a rediculous assumption. You post this assumption and wait poised to argue against it. However, it ain’t gonna happen because that isn’t the NRA’s position.
The fact that “noone is forced to reply” if they don’t like the false claims and strawmen you are presenting is true. However, you shouldn’t be surprised that you draw some fire when you post ignorant statements on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance.
Uhhh, sorry. I was obviously way out in the woods.
Keep fighting ignorance!
Do you understand what a strawman argument is? Both you and the OP try to make a point against the NRA by ascribing to it positions that it doesn’t hold, and then mocking those positions.
What a waste of electrons.
this whole thread needs to be burned, and some people need to read the rules.
Merijeek has it just right. Why is the argument not valid in the reverse direction?
Soz i didnt make the point of discussion more clear - never posted before.
By the way, Debaser is correct in saying " It’s unabashed NRA bashing with no substance. " Whats wrong with that? If you guys cant see why sh!t loads of guns means sh!t loads of shootings…
sinical brit
Look up, way, way up at the forum you are in. Notice anything?
Great Debates.
It does not say “Great bashings of organizations and ideas with no basis in fact”
That one’s the second on your left down the hall.
A does not necessarily equal B. Since you obviously do not care to have a rational debate over this, I wont bother providing a cite.
And what does that have to do with Nuclear Arms proliferation?