Virginia Tech Shootings

Shooting rats? I am all for tightening up on guns, by the way, but one could shoot rats with it, surely?

ATB from Fredrik

It wasn't invented for shooting rats. It was designed for a single purpose, and that isn't it.

I owned a shotgun for 10 plus years. Apart from clay discs, never shot anyone with it. Because of my work I am required to own and carry a hand gun. No doubt about it hand guns are designed to kill people. When I go camping in the mountains I always take my gun because I have had a number of close calls with the local bears (!!).

We have a violent gun based culture over here. Guns were used to settle the west, to pioneer families a gun was a necessity. We have movies and video games that glorify the use of gun violence and killing. We have a society that seems to breed loneliness and alienation. Communities are no longer friendly neighborly places where you know and trust those in your immediate environment.

The trouble with guns laws, while they are necessary, is that it is a human societal problem. The gun control debates focus entirely on hardware when it is those who wield the hardware and their environment that are the problem.

Just my opinion folks.


BB

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
Spoilsport

quote:

Originally posted by Big Brother:

The gun control debates focus entirely on hardware when it is those who wield the hardware and their environment that are the problem.

That is because it is incredibly difficult to address societal problems with legislation. Gun control laws are much more easily focused and would help to narrow the issues. They would at the very least assist the process of acculturating a safer attitude to guns.

Not only that, but the dead are unable to take part in the debate and gun control laws might help to keep more of the electorate alive.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:


They would at the very least assist the process of acculturating a safer attitude to guns.

Good point, you can't miss what you don't know. Kids who are not raise around guns would not notice or be bothered by their absence as adults.


BB

Rasher,

I think enough people have illustrated my point. A gun serves many more purposes than firing bullets at people.

I appreciate that you weren't able to recognise this point for a while, but it must by now, be quite clear.

I am not certain whether a statement made above about guns being used mainly to kill people is correct. I think in this debate, (about the aquisition of guns by deranged individuals, intent on killing others), we would have to exclude service personnel targetted in warfare. On this basis, I would very much doubt if the number of rounds of ammunition fired with the intention of killing or harming people was anything like the agrregate number of rounds fired in recreational gun-use, control of vermin, or self-defence against wild animals etc. But I am prepared to have my doubt removed.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

I think in this debate, (about the aquisition of guns by deranged individuals, intent on killing others), we would have to exclude service personnel targetted in warfare.

I'd agree that this debate was precipitated by a deranged indivual's use of guns; but I don't agree that the debate is confined strictly to this contingency.

The fact that it is nearly impossible to predict who, when, or if deranged individuals will act violently is only one starting point in the gun control debate.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Rasher,

I think enough people have illustrated my point. A gun serves many more purposes than firing bullets at people.

Sorry Don, the purpose of a gun is to shoot people. You can put it to as many different uses as you like, but that doesn't change the purpose. You can use it to knock in nails if you wish, but that is not why it was designed. Target practice, shooting vermin etc are all uses that guns have been put to, not purposes of the design, which was explicitly to shoot people. If you want to practice hitting a target, throw a ball at some tin cans. If you wish to kill vermin or pests, put down poison.

Mark

Sorry Chillkram, but I am right.

Cheers

Don

So Don, allowing that you are right for the sake of brevity, what precisely does this add to the debate?

quote:

Originally posted by Chillkram:
If you wish to kill vermin or pests, put down poison.

That's barbaric.

Deane,

It rectifies a misconception by Chillkram, Rasher and probably others, that the ONLY purpose for a gun is to kill people.

Debates, in which miscomceptions such as that, are allowed to develp into "facts" usually end with silly proposals, that fail to address the underlying problem.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Deane,

It rectifies a misconception by Chillkram, Rasher and probably others, that the ONLY purpose for a gun is to kill people.

I think the confusion lies elsewhere, over the difference between 'purpose' and 'use'.

I'm with Don on this one. Not everyone who buys a gun intends to use it to kill people. SOME people who purchase guns inevitably have that in mind, but there it is. If you're minded to kill a load of people you'll find a way to do it. Look at 9/11 - anything you like can be a deadly weapon in the hands of an unhinged psycho bent on murder.

Having said all that, it's pretty hard to make a case for legalising weapons that are hardly essential to civilian life. Some of the handguns that can easily be purchased in the States really are military weapons, and you've got to wonder... they're easily concealed and very deadly. As I say, so far as I can tell the argument in favour of it is you need a gun to protect yourself against all the nutters with guns... well, OK, but it's not an example other countries would wish to follow. Bearing in mind, of course, that they're highly illegal over here and yet we've got scumbags blowing eachother away on our streets all the time, and we mustn't forget Dunblane (sp?).

EW

For me, this really says it all:



from Get Your War On, by David Rees

Earwicker,

Your spelling is the same as mine......whether its right, is a different matter....

This is what I said on page 1

Well, Hungerford is only about six miles from where I live. 20 years ago the gun laws in the UK were different to the present, but gun ownership was very much less than in the USA and very much more regulated. Nevertheless, some nutcase (by definition - called Michael Ryan) went on a shooting spree around the town and killed 17 people.

Then a few years later (1996), in a small Scottish town called Dunblane, another nutcase goes into a school and murders 16 children plus their teacher.

Tougher gun laws will help, but not eliminate these nutcase murders.

Likewise, they might reduce the opportunity for terrorist attack, but won't eliminate it.

There is no magic, guaranteed solution.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
It wasn't invented for shooting rats. It was designed for a single purpose, and that isn't it.

Guns are designed to shoot bullets. What they are shot at is down to the individual. I can't say it more simply.

If you think differently then fine.

It is irrelevant if a gun serves more purposes than killing people.

A ban can only be good news.

There are other methods of fending off bears and killing vermin, and for those who cannot live without this recreational fix, the poor babies, get a grip.

I tell you what, let's resurrect Ghandi and put him in charge of world media corp. for the next 20 years and see what happens...

And while we're at it let's start checking people are likely to make good responsible parents prior to allowing them to have sex with intent to reproduce.

Why not? They do background checks for issuing credit cards don't they?

Okay Nigel & Don, we disagree.
Handbags at dawn?

Dave Brubeck,

Well said. I agree entirely.

In New Zealand it is possible to get a firearms licence and to purchase firearms. However, it is strictly controlled and - this is the most important point - the possession of a firearms licence is a privilege; not a right - and it can be withdrawn by the police at their discretion.

So you can shoot (some) animals for sport here in New Zealand. Having shot many opossums and rabbits myself I reckon it was a more humane end for those animals than it is for those killed by the poison that it is laid by the Department of Conservation for the same purpose ie: the eradication of pests.

I think there is a place for firearms in our country.

With the possible exception of a vet for the purpose of putting down a horse or elephant I see no reason for anyone to ever own a gun and that includes the military. Let em bash each other to death with clubs up close and personal if they must but let's take their toys away for good and have some peace in the world.

When I was young we had a rifle, two shotguns, and a shot-pistol all locked in the office for pest control and sport. Mainly it was question of stopping crows ruining wheat by eating the seed, but duck and pheasants came into it, as well as rat shooting.

I don't think having guns only the turn of a key away did anything other than build a respect for the potential dangers, but it was certainly not a right to keep these things.

That is the point I suspect. Really it is a cultural issue, and in UK we can watch the US culture just wishing it was different, but then we could what any number of foreign cultures wishing they were like ours.

Really the the peoples of the US are nothing like those in the UK in many ways.

Even though I grew up respecting the rules for using guns, such as never pointing a gun at anyone, and never walking about with a loaded gun, and even breaking [leaving the gun in the position where the cartridges can be inserted] the gun unless one was imminently going to fire it, I never likes them. For the last 20 years I have happily without a gun in the house.

Certainly the rifle we had would have been a VERY dangerous weapon if murder had been in mind. The shot-pistol would have been very lethal round children, but the respect for this horrid little wepon meant that nothing untoward ever happened of course...

Sincerely, Fredrik

A military with no guns. So they just face each other and raise their fists. I'd love to see that.