I would not come
August 27, 2006Yesterday “Bowling For Columbine” was aired again on television. Now, I’m not a fan of Michael Moore (the guy’s a hypocrite, exploting his new-found leftness for personal wealth), but his films (no, they are not documentaries, they are films) are quite enjoyable. Even though some ‘facts’ presented are debatable, overall, it’s still pretty interesting.
But, I want to talk about guns, weapons, rifles, pistols, you name it. I seriously cannot understand how you’d want to have guns. Guns for ordinary civilians serve absolutely no purpose at all. The only purpose is to kill and murder other human beings. To me, allowing your citizens to bear arms at such a massive scale is a sure sign of barbarism.
But of course the most unbelievable fact is that the right to bear arms is part of the… Constitution. A constitution that says it’s ok to murder and kill people (since that is the only purpose of firearms in today’s world), that it is ok for untrained civilians, who could be mentally disturbed, lovesick, or whatever, to have weapons, just is not a constitution to me.
The best argument against firearms, however, is of course: if guns make America safer… Than why is America not safe? America has 5.5 murders per 100000 people, while for instance the UK only has 1.6 murders per 100000 people (and my country only 1.2). Consistently, European countries with strict gun control laws show much, much, much lower homocide rates than the US. Of course, one cannot conclude a causal relationship by just looking at the numbers, butinteresting it is, nonetheless. And as Moore rightfully (I’ll give him that) notes, America does not have a very violent past when compared to what the 5 big historic/colonial powers of Europe have (Britain, The Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, and Spain), so that argument completely falls apart.
This whole gun thing is one of my primary concerns about going to America ever again. Before I went to Texas, roughly 5 years ago, I made the vow to never touch a firearm in my life, nor do I wish to participate in the firearms economy by buying stuff at stores that sell weapons, or by going to a shooting range.
That might become a problem if I go to the States. Were I to know that i.e. the people where I’m staying have a gun– I would not come.
Need a ladder to step onto that horse? ;)
>The only purpose is to kill and murder other human beings. To me, allowing your citizens to bear arms at such a massive scale is a sure sign of barbarism.
Other human beings who may be willing to harm or kill you.
>To me, allowing your citizens to bear arms at such a massive scale is a sure sign of barbarism.
To me, telling law abiding citizens what they can and cannot do, or what they can or cannot own is a sure sign of a facist / socialist dictatorship!
>But of course the most unbelievable fact is that the right to bear arms is part of the… Constitution. A constitution that says it’s ok to murder and kill people
Seek help.
>Consistently, European countries with strict gun control laws show much, much, much lower homocide rates than the US.
Sames with the ones that don’t. Hear of a country called Switzerland?
How much longer until your country becomes a Caliphate by the way?
Comment by Joseph — August 27, 2006 @ 12:29 pm
Rough draft under pseudonym not meant to be submitted :)
Comment by Linda — August 27, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
Other human beings who may be willing to harm or kill you.
Because they just as easily can get a gun as law-abiding citizens. Your point?
To me, telling law abiding citizens what they can and cannot do, or what they can or cannot own is a sure sign of a facist / socialist dictatorship!
Hahahah, why do I even bother to reply to this nonsense. So I guess what you’d in fact prefer, is anarchy? No government?
Seek help.
In present-day life, guns like M16s and Colts serve no other puprose than to harm and/or kill human beings. So, approving guns in the constitution AUTOMATICALLY means constitutional approval to kill people.
Sames with the ones that don’t. Hear of a country called Switzerland?
It seems like we have a classic example of cantreadaritis. Like I said, but I will repeat it just for you: one cannot draw causal relationships based ona few figures– however, tempting it remains. Especially since the only example you give, is Switzerland, while I can give so many more examples: the UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, etc. etc. You’re kind of outnumbered, you know.
How much longer until your country becomes a Caliphate by the way?
At least we Dutch can travel without being afraid of being hated, like Americans are.
Comment by Administrator — August 27, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Rough draft under pseudonym not meant to be submitted :)
I read it anyway. Thanks to spamminator :P.
Comment by Administrator — August 27, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
This is irritating me, some times the post shows some times they don’t.
Recap incase some are lost:
-This is a rural vs urban divide. America has a huge rural population. There are legitimate reasons for these people to be armed, including slow police response time, wildlife, etc. So no, it’s not a sign of barbarism. And that’s a silly game to play anyways.
-To say the constitution says it’s OK to murder people is borderline retarded.
-Faux statistics never win friends. America’s murder rate on a per-capita basis is less than a full percentage point ahead of the Netherlands. It does appear American’s feel more safe when walking alone at night though.
Check Nationmaster.com under crime.
-
Comment by Linda — August 27, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Faux statistics never win friends.
You guys have 5.5 murders per 100000 people. We have 1.2. That means you have 4.6 times as many murders per 100000 people (which is the internationally accepted number used to show murder rates) than we do.
What is wrong with that? It’s clear numbers, depicted using the internationally accepted method (number of murders per 100000 citizens).
This is a rural vs urban divide.
Sure. Automatic machine guns and rocket propelled granades to kill deer. Sure honey. Reminds me of that South Park episode. “It’s coming right for us!”
Other than that, it are the urban areas where most things go wrong in the United States, so the argument is pointless anyway.
Comment by Administrator — August 27, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
>Because they just as easily can get a gun as law-abiding citizens. Your point?
They’re not using legal means to obtain them. You’re absolutely right though, a criminal can easily obtain a firearm just as easily as law-abiding citizen through illegal methods, gun control or no gun control. My point is it doesn’t curtail anything.
>Hahahah, why do I even bother to reply to this nonsense. So I guess what you’d in fact prefer, is anarchy? No government?
(fail) Actually, what I’d prefer is a government that respected the rights of it’s citizens to do whatever they pleased assuming they don’t do silly things like violate or cheat the rights of others. A Libertarian view on justice if you will.
>In present-day life, guns like M16s and Colts serve no other puprose than to harm and/or kill human beings. So, approving guns in the constitution AUTOMATICALLY means constitutional approval to kill people.
No, it doesn’t. You’d be hard pressed to find a rational person that agrees with that. The consitituion says you have a right to bear arms. It doesn’t say you have the right to go around whacking people.
Does your prejudice rest soley with assault weapons, or does it continue onto hunting rifles, etc.?
>It seems like we have a classic example of cantreadaritis. Like I said, but I will repeat it just for you: one cannot draw causal relationships based ona few figures– however, tempting it remains. Especially since the only example you give, is Switzerland, while I can give so many more examples: the UK, The Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, etc. etc. You’re kind of outnumbered, you know.
See, that isn’t proof of any kind.
It’s like me saying _X is bad because _A _B _C _D banned it without testing (paranoia bandwagon) while _E seems to be failing (debatable) but _F is alive and well.
I’m pretty sure Finland is culturally and legally fairly pro-firearms btw.
Comment by Linda — August 27, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
>At least we Dutch can travel without being afraid of being hated, like Americans are.
You’re right. It’s just the massive extremist population that you have at home that hates you.
Comment by Linda — August 27, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
They’re not using legal means to obtain them. You’re absolutely right though, a criminal can easily obtain a firearm just as easily as law-abiding citizen through illegal methods, gun control or no gun control. My point is it doesn’t curtail anything.
The harder you make it to obtain a firearm, the less people will own a firearm, the less people will shoot a firearm, the less people get killed by firearms.
The logic is fairly simple.
what I’d prefer is a government that respected the rights of it’s citizens to do whatever they pleased assuming they don’t do silly things like violate or cheat the rights of others.
That would be very noble, were it not for the fact that man cannot be trusted. Even the most sane human being can easily fall into killing someone, for instance, because of financial problems or love sickness. And having access to a vast amount of guns only make the step easier.
And another example is of course the school shootings in the US. We have fcuked up youth too, just like you. But since here our kids do not have a vast amount of guns within reach– we don’thave school shootouts.
No matter what way you twist it, the readily available pool of firearms in the United States facilitates the killing of people.
See, that isn’t proof of any kind.
Which is exactly what I said. It’s interesting– but not proof.
You’re right. It’s just the massive extremist population that you have at home that hates you.
Well, so far, we had only one life lost due to terrorists (the filmmaker). You guys had - how many? Well, of course the 3000 of the 9/11, then we have all the US soldiers killed, the terrorist bombs in Africa and all over the middle-east…
Yep, there’s a reason why Americans want to travel without their American passports.
Comment by Administrator — August 27, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
I worked at a backpackers hostel for quite some time in italy, it was a normal thing to see Americans with Canadian flags on their backpacks, or telling people that they were from Canada…
Americans are NOT well liked at all all over the world. If you’ve never been out of america tho then you’d have no idea how much your country is disliked.
Every country should have strict gun control… There is no need for automatic weapons for civil purpose. We banned all semi-automatics from Australia a while back and brought in massive gun controls. I think it was a damn smart thing to do.
Guns are bad anyway you look at it.
Comment by Matt — August 27, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
To clarify a few things:
1.) I’m not an American
2.) I do not support America’s foreign policy :)
>The harder you make it to obtain a firearm, the less people will own a firearm, the less people will shoot a firearm, the less people get killed by firearms. The logic is fairly simple.
The problem is the logic is flawed. All it does is restrict those who are willing to play by the rules from obtaining a firearm. It doesn’t make it any harder for a criminal to obtain a weapon. Despite having some of the strictest gun control (though not quite as harsh as the UK) we have had a wave of gang-related shootings across Toronto.
>That would be very noble, were it not for the fact that man cannot be trusted. Even the most sane human being can easily fall into killing someone, for instance, because of financial problems or love sickness. And having access to a vast amount of guns only make the step easier.
You’re foolish if you think outlawing a particular method of murder, will stop murder. If someone is at the point where they’re willing to shoot a former lover, they’ve well passed the point where they’re willing to stab a former lover.
Ahh, but that former lover could’ve defended herself with a firearm if she had access — just saying
>And another example is of course the school shootings in the US. We have fcuked up youth too, just like you. But since here our kids do not have a vast amount of guns within reach– we don’thave school shootouts.
No matter what way you twist it, the readily available pool of firearms in the United States facilitates the killing of people.
I would contend that it’s a matter of careless owners leaving their firearms in an unsecured manner.
I’m for some sort of safety/intelligence course before being able to obtain one btw :)
>Well, so far, we had only one life lost due to terrorists (the filmmaker). You guys had - how many? Well, of course the 3000 of the 9/11, then we have all the US soldiers killed, the terrorist bombs in Africa and all over the middle-east…
timebomb. The cartoons illustrated this rather nicely.
Comment by Linda — August 27, 2006 @ 8:25 pm
>I seriously cannot understand how you’d want to have guns.
There are times that you might need to protect yourself or your family. Personally, I am NOT 100% against guns. I just want stricter control over who gets it and for what purpose.
If a woman is seperated by her violent husband or a family gets harrassed, I think it makes sense to have a way to protect yourself. But not without some education and justification.
Comment by Eugenia — August 27, 2006 @ 8:50 pm
BTW, what I mean above is that the gun must be given in the case where a lawsuit towards the “enemy” takes too long to happen and the enemy is free. Between a lawsuit taking place too late, or if the police or the law can’t protect you for some reason (or because of a law loophole), then a gun IS a good solution. Short of not having money to get bodyguards that is.
Comment by Eugenia — August 27, 2006 @ 8:52 pm
You’re foolish if you think outlawing a particular method of murder, will stop murder. If someone is at the point where they’re willing to shoot a former lover, they’ve well passed the point where they’re willing to stab a former lover.
Oh don’t try to twist my words. I clearly said: “And having access to a vast amount of guns only make the step easier.”
What is easier for a human, to point a gun and cleanly pull the trigger, or to go about using more primitive ways like knives or suffocation? You are DELUSIONAL if you think that commiting murder by firearm is NOT the easiest and fastest way of committing the crime. Taking away this method raises the psychological threshold to commit the crime by a serous measure, thus making it harder to commit the crime.
The problem is the logic is flawed.
So let me get this straight… You believe that in countries with less guns, gunfights are just as common as in countries with a vast pool of easily accesible legal firearms?
I would contend that it’s a matter of careless owners leaving their firearms in an unsecured manner.
EXACTLY. What is easier– making mankind less stupid, or just prohibit guns altogether?
If someone shoots and kills a man, who do you blame; the person pulling the trigger, or the bullet? Obviously the shooter, right? Now, step two: what is easier to eradicate, the shooters, or the bullets?
Comment by Administrator — August 27, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
Even then Eugenia, I say no. It is the job of the state (at least here in The Netherlands, that is) to provide the proper protection for such persons– and in fact, this happens in my country. The police and the national secutiry agency protect all sorts of people in this country, which ranges from supplying said people with bodyguards, to securing their houses.
Passing on guns to untrained civilians is a recipe for disaster. And no, you cannot train a normal civilian for this in a few weeks– just take a look at how long it takes to become a policeman or a militairy person.
Comment by Administrator — August 27, 2006 @ 9:02 pm
>It is the job of the state to provide
>the proper protection for such persons
Sorry, but this does not always work. For example, if you have a violent ex-husband but that husband has no criminal record or previous unlawful history, then the judge is free to not give you a restraining order because he might not believe you if he won’t see marks on your body. And even with a restraining order, a crazy person will come and get you, even if he knows that he will end up in jail.
There ARE cases where the state can not always protect you. And for these cases, a gun IS one of the solutions. Might not be the best, but it’s a good one. Not everyone affords to get a bodyguard, and not for 5 years in a row. Even a rich person would have trouble financing such protection.
Sorry Thom, but guns can be handy at times. There are times that you are on your own and the law can not protect you the way you feel satisfied with. The only condition I give is that a screening process must be in order before a gun license is given.
Comment by Eugenia — August 27, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
New found leftness?
Michael Moore has been making movies since 1989. I’m sure you’ve heard of Roger and Me. I think he’s against the current administration from the beginning and painted as a leftist.
>Guns for ordinary civilians serve absolutely no purpeeose at all. >The only purpose is to kill and murder other human beings.
To Kill and Murder? I don’t own a gun or use a gun, but they can be used for hunting or defending yourself from people who break into your house.
A lesser purpose is to scare away intruders and wound, and yes kill those who are going to kill you.
I fired a handgun in my youth at a 2 liter bottle of water. I’m pretty sure my grandfather owns a gun and my grandmother on the other side. I don’t think either of them have actually used them to kill or maim anyone, nor has a child shot itself with either gun.
>But of course the most unbelievable fact is that the right to bear >arms is part of the… Constitution. A constitution that says it’s >ok >to murder and kill people (since that is the only purpose of firearms >in today’s world), that it is ok for untrained civilians, who >could be >mentally disturbed, lovesick, or whatever, to have weapons, just is >not a constitution to me.
My God, not the Constitution ! Did you ever think that over 200 years ago that this was needed to protect everyone from the British government?
Untrained civilians? Need I remind you there are licenses and permits for that very reason and that most people with guns know how to use them?
>why is America not safe?
Because Americas is bigger and more diverse than some tiny European country? If you weren’t so homogeneous I’m sure you would have more problems. It probably has to do with the failed drug war. I think people should be allowed to do all the drugs they want if they do so without harming others. Illegal drugs lead to illegal ways of getting money for them. I’m pretty sure we could have less crime with legal drugs.
We see what happens when guns go away. Criminals don’t care about the law anyway. If the Jews had guns, the Germans would have thought twice about trying to kill them all.
That is the ultimate purpose of guns, to protect yourself from the government, be it your own or another.
>… rocket propelled granades to kill deer
I’m pretty sure RPGs are illegal to own, so please check your facts before you post lies. If I’m wrong please feel free to mock me ;-)
Urban vs rural is a perfectly valid argument for guns, but a more valid reason is “because it is legal”
>So I guess what you’d in fact prefer, is anarchy? No government?
How about as less government as possible. I don’t like a nanny state telling me what I can or can’t do as long as it doesn’t harm others.
>The harder you make it to obtain a firearm, the less people will >own a firearm, the less people will shoot a firearm, the less people >get killed by firearms.
Don’t you mean the harder it is for normal law abiding citizens, it’s still easy for criminals to get them so more people are killed by criminals
>Even the most sane human being can easily fall into killing >someone, for instance, because of financial problems or love >sickness.
No not everyone is a killer I would never kill anyone for those reasons. There are plenty of Americans who go through their whole life with out becoming a murderer.
I wish there were no need for guns or drugs.
/not a gun owner
Comment by mikesum32 — August 27, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
Wow popular post. As we say in the states, “it’s not guns that kill people, people kill people.” Even if we were to enact an anti-gun ammendment, I’m sure that we’d find other ways to kill one another and that the 5.5 number wouldn’t decrease. It has nothing to do with guns, it has everything to do with people just not getting along.
The right to bear arms is one of the founding principles of this country, and of course it’s also big business. I’m personally anti-gun, but hey if people want to go out and shoot people I’ll chalk it up to Darwinism. I say good riddance.
To obtain a a handgun in the states requires a vigorous background check now, as well as a mandated training program. Of course the black market is rampant, but I’m sure even in countries where firearms are prohibited by law it wouldn’t be too hard to obtain one if you knew where to look.
Comment by jayson knight — August 28, 2006 @ 8:29 am
“it’s not guns that kill people, people kill people.”
Exactly. Re-read my last post: “EXACTLY. What is easier– making mankind less stupid, or just prohibit guns altogether?
If someone shoots and kills a man, who do you blame; the person pulling the trigger, or the bullet? Obviously the shooter, right? Now, step two: what is easier to eradicate, the shooters, or the bullets?”
Comment by Administrator — August 28, 2006 @ 9:07 am
That’s typical left-wing rationale for you, privileging social control over individual rights and freedom. You could just impose stricter licenses on firearms, or restricting their use locally on problem areas, but no, lets just ban them for the common good of society.
Comment by Hugo — August 28, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Interesting then, that I vote right-wing…
Comment by Administrator — August 28, 2006 @ 11:00 am
That’s typical
left-wingright-wing rationale for you, privilegingsocial controlelistism over individual rights and freedom. You could just impose stricter licenses on firearms, or restricting their use locally on problem areas, but no, lets just ban them for the common good ofsocietyfatherland with gods blessing.I’m a libertarian.
Comment by Hugo — August 28, 2006 @ 5:16 pm
Hahahhahaha Libertarians. “Let’s just pretend there are no problems, and abolish the government. As long as we put our hands over our ears and sing ‘la la la la’ loud enough, all the problems of the world will go away.”
Libertarian. Buzzword.
Comment by Administrator — August 28, 2006 @ 5:24 pm
talk about poping open a can of worms there thom.
i wonder how many times i have run into the exact same debate.
end of story? that americans have a completly diffrent view on home protection.
hey, i dont have a problem with a rifle or a shotgun. why? they are big, and bulky. not something thats easy to conceal (alltho you could allways cut a shotgun down to size if you feel like it).
but i do have a problem with handguns and similar because they are made to be concealed (silly stuff like the desert eagle excluded).
and defending your home with a firearm? come on. unless your awake 24/7, or have a 50+ meter area around your house covered in motion sensors and maybe angry dogs your not likely to notice that they have broken in before they are in your bedroom. yep im going over the top here to make a point, watch the sparks fly.
and if they are showing up in the middle of the day then they are either so drugged up that they dont care, or aiming for a empty house. criminals are cowards, pure and simple.
and if anyone trys to guess, yep im european just like thom is. but im from a diffrent nation.
but all in all i dont have a problem with americans having liberal gun laws. just as long as they stay on their side of the atlantic ;)
Comment by turn.self.off — August 29, 2006 @ 7:23 am
You have no understanding of the history of America, obviously. Our country since its inception has been wild with people fighting for land, resources and riches. From the start, if you didn’t have firearms to protect your family and your stuff, you would not survive. The French, the Spaniards, the English (to name a few) were all after the same thing and had firearms to back them up. So our Constitution reflects this history. I do not own guns and never will, but I do understand why it is an American right. Research and learn before you post ridiculous misconceptions.
Comment by M. Carter — October 9, 2006 @ 1:51 am
Erm, Germany, France, the UK, The Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal have much more violent histories than the US will EVER have, yet we don’t slaughter each other with legal guns like you guys do.
Now you again.
Comment by Administrator — October 9, 2006 @ 7:07 am