Gun control: the results are in?

Status
Not open for further replies.
hmm no when i saw Armageddon and inderpendance day what i thought wasnt about it really happened but that it shows you the atitude (depicted in real life perfectly by Bush B\W) that americans think they are BETTER than everyone else

it takes a YANK to work out how to blow up the ships
it takes a YANK to blow up the astroid

this has a name, PROPERGANDER
i wouldnt pay any atention to any movie except that movies reflect real life and real life reflects movies

at least the underlying things not the "gone out, killed alian" ect stuff but the values it pitured IN the movie translate to the audiance and they carry that home.

This is called a MEME (think thats the right spelling)
a meme is like a virus, You pick it up and then carry it with you and pass it on to every person you can, your children, friends, familly ect

religion is a memeplex (which is a group of memes transmitted together). MOVIES are also memes. The writer doesnt just put down a story even if thats what he means to

lets look at a Bond film as an example
what are the basic elements of a bond film

Bond always defeats the bad guy
Bond always gets the girl

so what does that show
firstly that "good always wins"

ask a feminist about the second (but stand back)

end of off topic rant
 
Asguard said:
hmm no when i saw Armageddon and inderpendance day what i thought wasnt about it really happened but that it shows you the atitude (depicted in real life perfectly by Bush B\W) that americans think they are BETTER than everyone else

it takes a YANK to work out how to blow up the ships
it takes a YANK to blow up the astroid

this has a name, PROPERGANDER
i wouldnt pay any atention to any movie except that movies reflect real life and real life reflects movies
Click to expand...
Uh...the U.S. and Russia were the only countries that had a manned space program when the movie was made. Who else were they supposed to use? The Canadians?
 
Hell, if we can send well digers on our imaginary ship, they can do the same...
 
the point is point our one american movie where the yanks are helpless and someone ELSE came in and saved there ass

and i mean a movie that actually SOLD in cinama's and made in holiwood
 
hmmm i was under the impression that james bond was BRITISH as it stars at least 2 british actors who i KNOW are british

ie M and the guy who played the admiral

who are both the stars of "as time goes by"

edit to fix title
 
And since when are British people Americans/yanks?

Hell, Crociddile Dundee? We even include the country that's trying to educate you.

If you don't like these examples (for whatever reason), please list the countries which are acceptable to you as not being American... because your geography seems somewhat backwards.
 
again with the when was a movie MADE IN HOLIWOOD that didnt show the US as the "world hero's"
 
Undecided said:
Nasor: A simple question, are people more likely to kill with a gun (mentally), then with another weapon, or no weapon at all? Are people mentally inclined to kill when they have “power” or not?
Click to expand...

I think you may have a point there.

To a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail. To a man with a gun. . .
 
Asguard said:
again with the when was a movie MADE IN HOLIWOOD that didnt show the US as the "world hero's"
Click to expand...
Hello? The bond movies ARE made in Hollywood. They're owned by MGM.
 
Asguard said:
again with the when was a movie MADE IN HOLIWOOD that didnt show the US as the "world hero's"
Click to expand...
Silly... you're wrong. Admit it and give up.

http://www.bondmovies.com/
Notice that just about every reference of a company working on a Bond film is american. None (that I know of) are British.

EA, MGM, Spike TV... etc etc.
 
Undecided said:
Of course.

If so then, what justification is there for having handguns? If we know mentally the human mentality changes when they have a weapon or advantage to use that weapon for its sole purpose to kill, then why allow it? (To Nasor)
Click to expand...
In the United States it's presupposed that people should be able to do something (such as own guns) unless it can be shown that there's a good reason why they shouldn't be able to.

You're assuming here that having guns increases the level of violence, and that the increased likelyhood of violence constitutes a 'good reason' why people shouldn't be able to own guns. But as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, there are many countries where the citizens own lots of guns (Canada, Switzerland, Israel) but have low murder rates. There are also plenty of examples of countries in which violent crime (including murder) has increased after tough gun control laws were enacted, such as England, Australia, and Brazil. So, the conclusions that can be drawn from this is that having access to guns doesn't necessarily result in higher levels of violence, and gun control laws are not an effective means of reducing violence in society. Therefore, there is no good reason to restrict gun ownership.
 
In America we believe that governments are formed from people surrendering their power to the government and that the government does not have any power that is not surrendered to it. This means that unless the government can convince a majority of people that guns are bad they cannot take our weapons from us. Whenever gun owners attempt to show evidence that gun control does not work it is ignored see Australia and England post. The bar was set show a country that is an island that gun control has not produced any results for. Two were shown but it is still not enough. Fine your turn, show me two countries that gun control has lowered the over al murder rate without other influences such as three strikes, mandatory sentences etcetera. One of America’s big problems is easy access to illegal drugs funding drug wars. If you reduced the funding you would reduce the number of murders committed as a result.
 
In the United States it's presupposed that people should be able to do something (such as own guns) unless it can be shown that there's a good reason why they shouldn't be able to.

Is it? I thought any Tom, Dick, and Harry can own a gun. I don’t want to make this into a Tiassa vs. Stokes thread; I just want to know how you would go about finding “responsible gun owners?” Also if we give everyone the ability to own guns, then aren’t you in accordance with the inevitability that some very bad people will own those guns? Yet we as a society allow potential mass murderers stealthily sneak under the surface of our society, and we by default treat them like responsible gun owners until they actually do something with that gun? That doesn’t sound particularly cognitive.

You're assuming here that having guns increases the level of violence, and that the increased likelyhood of violence

Not violence, death.

there are many countries where the citizens own lots of guns (Canada, Switzerland, Israel) but have low murder rates.

Being from Canada, I can tell you that I know no one who owns a gun (in Toronto!) yet we all feel safer here then we would in the US. Here in Canada we do have more guns per capita then Americans, but what type of gun, surely not a semi-automatic, or shotgun. In Canada we have reasons to own guns (outside the cities), but in the US I see no such reason (outside the countryside).

There are also plenty of examples of countries in which violent crime (including murder) has increased after tough gun control laws were enacted, such as England, Australia, and Brazil.

Doesn’t necessarily incur a link btwn the two.

gun control laws are not an effective means of reducing violence in society. Therefore, there is no good reason to restrict gun ownership.

I don’t think that we should ban guns, no but I don’t see why we should allow people to get guns like a shotgun, Magnum, etc. For no verifiable reason other then to have it or even use it. I am sorry but I do not trust humanity with my life, would you sell a gun to a “gangsta” type? If so then you have gone beyond the basic human logical confines into a new world of…delusion.

Also you have to answer my more important question:

Nasor: A simple question, are people more likely to kill with a gun (mentally), then with another weapon, or no weapon at all? Are people mentally inclined to kill when they have “power” or not?
 
Undecided said:
In the United States it's presupposed that people should be able to do something (such as own guns) unless it can be shown that there's a good reason why they shouldn't be able to.

Is it? I thought any Tom, Dick, and Harry can own a gun.
Click to expand...
You missed his point.

Any Tom, Dick, and Harry CAN own a gun unless it can be shown that there's a good reason why they shouldn't be able to. Into this category fall people who are
a) mentally unstable
b) criminals
c) (any other restrictions I don't know about)
but in the US I see no such reason
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter. People do not need to justify their right to own. You need to justify resricting their ownership.

So, I have a question for you? Are people more likely to assualt other people when they know that nobody else has a gun, but they still do?
 
Undecided said:
Doesn’t necessarily incur a link btwn the two.
Click to expand...
No, but it's strong evidence that gun control laws aren't a good way to reduce the murder rate.
Also you have to answer my more important question:

Nasor: A simple question, are people more likely to kill with a gun (mentally), then with another weapon, or no weapon at all? Are people mentally inclined to kill when they have “power” or not?
Click to expand...
Surprisingly, all evidence seems to indicate that no, people are not more likely to kill each other simply because they have guns. Since, you know, decreasing gun ownership doesn't seem to decrease the murder rate. You seem to be trying to build an argument for the position that taking away guns would lower the murder rate, when in fact we have experimental evidence that it doesn't. I can understand why you would believe that people are more likely to kill each other if they have guns, but if you want to believe that you'll have to come up with an explanation for why it never seems to lower the murder rate when people's guns are taken away.

As to the rest of your post, Persol pretty much covered it.
 
Any Tom, Dick, and Harry CAN own a gun unless it can be shown that there's a good reason why they shouldn't be able to. Into this category fall people who are
a) mentally unstable
b) criminals
c) (any other restrictions I don't know about)

That’s what I asked for, but we know that criminals still get guns, so really what are we left with?

Are people more likely to assualt other people when they know that nobody else has a gun, but they still do?

I don’t see violence as the main problem here like others, what I see is the ability to kill as the problem. When you assault someone that’s bad, and you should be punished. But assault is really one thing, murder is quite another. You mentally have a sense of superiority when you hold a gun, that’s the point. When you have a gun you are literally someone else’s God, a mere fist is not going to do anything. With a gun the other person doesn’t have a defense, that is imo the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top