The best way to decrease gun violence is to outlaw guns for civilians

[BasketCase]

Someday, you will wake up and see the horrors you perpetuate; the injustice, the cruelty and the damage to our souls. The very barbarism you oppose is your sustenance.

Out in the wild, there are many animals who live by your rule (that is, no eating meat). You know what they're called?

Prey.

When a mountain lion comes along and decides you look pretty darn tasty, there's only one way out. We humans are really slow runners--you're not gonna escape that way. Your only chance is to kill the mountain lion. The only reason you get away with vegetarianism as your lifestyle is because a bunch of other people are driving away or killing the mountain lions who would turn you into a weenie roast.

The barbarism you spoke of is pretty much just a fact of life.

Besides, plants are the only thing defending us from runaway global warming--eating plants is a sure way to destroy the planet.......

 

[Rashiminos]

Out in the wild, there are many animals who live by your rule (that is, no eating meat). You know what they're called?

Prey.

When a mountain lion comes along and decides you look pretty darn tasty, there's only one way out. We humans are really slow runners--you're not gonna escape that way. Your only chance is to kill the mountain lion. The only reason you get away with vegetarianism as your lifestyle is because a bunch of other people are driving away or killing the mountain lions who would turn you into a weenie roast.

The barbarism you spoke of is pretty much just a fact of life.

Besides, plants are the only thing defending us from runaway global warming--eating plants is a sure way to destroy the planet.......

Meh, killing an animal to defend himself is "justifiable."

 

[azzaman333]

No, the best way is to kill everyone.

 

[Traitorfish]

Out in the wild, there are many animals who live by your rule (that is, no eating meat). You know what they're called?

Prey.

When a mountain lion comes along and decides you look pretty darn tasty, there's only one way out. We humans are really slow runners--you're not gonna escape that way. Your only chance is to kill the mountain lion. The only reason you get away with vegetarianism as your lifestyle is because a bunch of other people are driving away or killing the mountain lions who would turn you into a weenie roast.

The barbarism you spoke of is pretty much just a fact of life.

Human beings are different, we are more empathetic than any other creature and, more than that, we can consciously acknowledge are own empathy, thus creating a moral compulsion to act upon it. This, arguably, requires humans to show a compassion to animals that a natural predator is unable to. While a lion or wolf is compelled by natural instinct to kill, humans are compelled by our empathy to care for other living creatures. This does not exclude us from the killing of animals for food, but, in this day and age, where it is possible to live a healthy vegetarian lifestyle, perhaps we are compelled to do so. I'm not saying that we should- I'm honestly not shore myself- just that making an appeal to "natural law" does not work when you factor humanity's, shall we say, "higher state of mind" into the equation. I'm sure Ecofarm would agree that a human can morally kill and consume an animal, just that, perhaps, this is not so in our modern society.
As for the mountain lion thing, well, that's really not the point. Defending yourself against a predator is justifiable, while Ecofarm's argument is that the killing of animal's for meat is that it is unnecessary, and therefore unjustified. Trying to defend your hamburger because "mountain lions could eat you" is pretty much, well, I'll be frank, completely and utterly absurd.

That's what always puzzles me about people attributing our sins to "human nature". Surely, human nature is to be empathetic, to be, for want of a better word, "good"? It's the animal in us that drives to selfishness and sin... Pedantic, perhaps, but I think it reflects some underlying philosophical idea, although I'm really not sure what it is.

 

[Abaddon]

Humans don't need guns.

 

[holy king]

Humans don't need guns.

who does? .

 

[Ecofarm]

Cows

Cows with Guns

Original video (they're both good)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPhWfSeMYHA

 

[JohnRM]

I wasn't comparing Americans (i.e. US citizens) with Europeans, will ignore your implied suggestion that Europeans will not fight for their liberty (an archaic word, for which I should substitute freedom) and frankly, I find it disturbing that citizens should fight for some "liberty" being taken away from them. I hope you do not mean that literally, for that would just confirm that rights (such as "gun rights") should not be decided by the individual, but by society at large, as the Fouding Fathers were well aware of.

What I mean is, if you come to confiscate my firearms, you run the risk of meeting the business end of them and finding your grave. LITERALLY.

Unfortunately, the US have developed significantly since the 18th century frontier state into a 21st century world power, without gun legislation keeping pace. What happens when citizens misuse their "gun rights" can be viewed in the media on a montly, sometimes weekly basis. With every right comes responsibility; it is the latter which is lacking and which is the reason why society recognizes a government in the first place: to secure the rights of the individual against less responsible individuals. I submit to you that the values that you are referring to do not suit a modern society at all. (And I am well aware of the intricacies of US law and US history.)

I am a law-abiding citizen. I don't bother anyone. What others do is none of my business. My RIGHTS ought not to be subject to censure due to the acts of what constitutes an extremely small percentage of gun owners.

 

[Abaddon]

who does? .

Mothers apprently/

Ban all guns, to everyone. Soldiers can arm wrestle.

 

[Ecofarm]

Has the concept of addressing the source instead of the symptom ever occured to you?

 

[azzaman333]

Has the concept of addressing the source instead of the symptom ever occured to you?

GUNS are the source for GUN VIOLENCE.

Destroying all GUNS means there are no GUNS for GUN VIOLENCE to occur.

Problem solved.

 

[JohnRM]

Eco,

The gun control issue is not driven by a real desire to quell violence in America. For many, that is the case, of course, but what is really driving the issue is that gun control is something that minorities, especially blacks, support at a rate of four or five to one. It is just one of many reasons why the Democrats push the issue so much. They are buying votes. Of course, not all Democrats support gun control, because, as they found out during the 1990s, if they want to remain competitive anywhere, but the major urban centers, they have to appear supportive of the second amendment. Otherwise, they face being swept out of office.

 

[JohnRM]

GUNS are the source for GUN VIOLENCE.

Destroying all GUNS means there are no GUNS for GUN VIOLENCE to occur.

Problem solved.

Are pens and pencils, too, the source of all misspelled words?

 

[Abaddon]

Nah, kheybords.

 

[tonberry]

I voted disagree because I don't think it's the BEST way to reduce violence.

I personnaly quite happy to live in a place where guns are rare. But I understand that some country have different environement that would make this prohibition unrealistic. I also have no problem with hunting.

However, I'd like to ask those who are pro-gun to tell if if they are against license to drive a car. Should I have the right to own and drive a car without the governement interfering?

Also if the purpose of owning a weapon in the US is to protect yourself from the governement, should there be any limit to what weapon the people should own? I mean the governement have an army. 200 years ago, militial could stand their own against an armed regiment but today, it take more than that so should the people have to right to own tanks, planes or even nuclear weapon to defend themself against the governement?

 

[Bugfatty300]

GUNS are the source for GUN VIOLENCE.

Destroying all GUNS means there are no GUNS for GUN VIOLENCE to occur.

Problem solved.

Repeat after me:

I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...
I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...
I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...

 

[Sims2789]

I checked agree, but it probably depends on the area. I bet more people die from accidentally shooting somebody who they think is a burglar than die from being unable to defend themselves from somebody with a gun.

I don't support banning civilians from carrying all guns but doing so is the best way to reduce gun violence that I can think of.

However, it wouldn't have a substantial effect on certain types of crimes, and would mainly reduce accidental homicides (like thinking your wife is a burglar) and non-premeditated murder.

 

[Agent327]

What I mean is, if you come to confiscate my firearms, you run the risk of meeting the business end of them and finding your grave. LITERALLY.




I am a law-abiding citizen. I don't bother anyone. What others do is none of my business. My RIGHTS ought not to be subject to censure due to the acts of what constitutes an extremely small percentage of gun owners.

Your first statement is in direct contradicition with your second. (Simply because your "RIGHTS" are the result of the society you live in.)

Also if the purpose of owning a weapon in the US is to protect yourself from the governement

Hopefully that is not the purpose of owning a gun - as it's a right granted and guaranteed by that very government.

The gun control issue is not driven by a real desire to quell violence in America. For many, that is the case, of course, but what is really driving the issue is that gun control is something that minorities, especially blacks, support at a rate of four or five to one.

I find this equally disturbing... gun control is a race issue???

 

[Flying Pig]

Repeat after me:

I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...
I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...
I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...

He is right, 100%! If there are no guns, there will be less gun violence! He is not saying that people are not to blame for shootings, but that if you stop thugs getting weapons then there will be fewer thugs with weapons! Not that our free-and-fair society would want to ban guns to keep them away from thugs, but he has outlined the one foolproof method of removing gun crime.

 

[Bast]

Repeat after me:

I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...
I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...
I'm not responsible for my actions. Inanimate objects are...

No guns = no gun violence.

No guns does not = no violence.

Guns are easily available, can be used easily to cause harm and exist for no other reason than to cause harm.

OUTLAW guns NOW!