Guns and Gun Control

[Hari's Chick]

A recent topic on the music forum has me wondering how everyone feels about this? In an interview with Tom Petty he spoke out against guns. For years Harry Nilsson was at the Fests on his mission to ban handguns. If you donated, you got to kiss Harry and he also signed autographs.

Anyway, it is a complex issue. What are your opinions/experiences and why?

[joenamherst]

GUNS = EVIL!
Guns are legal in the U.S. and because of this, the U.S. is number two in the world with people in prison (Red China is number one).
I REST MY CASE!!

[Rellevart]

I really don't see any reason why any human being needs to own a handgun. However, I also think that were it made illegal to do so, the people who still wanted them would find a way to get them, just like with drugs. Sigh.

Hey, I bought one of those "Kisses for Gun Control" from Harry way back when I was 21. :smile1:

[62hofner]

I defend people's rights to protect themselves from all the maniacs out there who mean to do harm by owning a handgun. On the other hand, if strict gun laws were enforced, and fire arms were not SO readily available to criminals, maybe we wouldn't need to own "protective" weapons.

I don't see the need to have semi-automatic assault rifles readily available to the public! I mean, who really needs these things other than the military and some special Police units? If you are a hunter - fine! But you RENT a rifle for the day and turn it in after you're finished with it.

The "right to bear arms" was entered into the Constitution at a time when this country was still young and still finding its "sea legs"... with threats from the super-powers of the era looming over her. It was a different time. Although we are today still under threat from other malevolent forces, some folks totally use that ammendment to justify their silly (at best) and dangerous (at worst) affection for fire arms.

In a nutshell, I am not for the banning of ANYTHING. I AM, however, for stronger and better-enforced gun laws.

[Zimmerman The Gnome]

If no one owned a gun the world would be a safer place. Obvious comment but true. They are pointless.

[62hofner]

If no one owned a gun the world would be a safer place. Obvious comment but true. They are pointless.

I don't think guns will ever go away completely. Not in this country (The U.S.A.)..... there is too much history associated with the gun.

Not saying it's "right", but it's just how it is.

[Hari's Chick]

Hey, I bought one of those "Kisses for Gun Control" from Harry way back when I was 21. :smile1:

Wasn't Harry a sweetie?

[sourmilkpinky]

I don't think guns will ever go away completely. Not in this country (The U.S.A.)..... there is too much history associated with the gun.

Not saying it's "right", but it's just how it is.

and you are right...guns will never go away...how else are we going to kill the animals?

[Hari's Chick]

lol

[ringo_rama]

I really don't see any reason why any human being needs to own a handgun. However, I also think that were it made illegal to do so, the people who still wanted them would find a way to get them, just like with drugs. Sigh.

Exactly.

The only groups who should have guns are police and the military.

[sourmilkpinky]

don't forget criminals...they will have them regardless...

[BadLittleKid]

Exactly.

The only groups who should have guns are police and the military.

don't forget criminals...they will have them regardless...

The lesser evil is that only police would have guns, but criminals will get guns from abroad or by some other way.

[joenamherst]

I will admit that at one time people needed guns.....TO HUNT FOR THEIR DINNER. Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't there readily available supermarkets and restaurants in most areas of the U.S.?

[kmac]

As this thread continues more questions pop up.

Should rifles, guns or both be banned?

If rifles are banned, whom should and how shall we handle animal control? Should another government bureaucracy be created?

Should we allow animals to live natural lives from birth to death? Regardless of their danger to humans?

I see no need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons. I am at odds on the handgun and especially the rifle issue.

[FPSHOT]

I don't see what 'animals' has to do with this.

I see Hari's Chick is joking about Pinky's remark, but I find it a bit embarrassing to relate guns to animals. What is the relation?

Apart from that, it is common knowledge that because of the freedom in the US for instance as to being able to buy guns as easily as a newspaper causes damage, just like it is in for instance many African and Arab states, just to name a few examples.

Many causes can lead to the use of guns. We have seen the horrible things at US schools where some say afterwards like "well if that person did not have a gun he would not have been anbel to protect himself" ... well in those cases I just shake my head. That is a never ending story.

[Hari's Chick]

As this thread continues more questions pop up.

Should rifles, guns or both be banned?

If rifles are banned, whom should and how shall we handle animal control? Should another government bureaucracy be created?

Should we allow animals to live natural lives from birth to death? Regardless of their danger to humans?

I see no need for automatic or semi-automatic weapons. I am at odds on the handgun and especially the rifle issue.


It is interesting to read these questions. The issue is really complex.

Rifles and automatic weapons~ what would be the purpose? Well, of course you know my stand on the animal issue. Actually, the cows which are bred for McDonalds are more of a threat to humans. This is because of the environmental impact of distroying the rainforests, and... this is gross but true... the cow farms which breed just for meat... means there are far more cows on earth than there would be in the natural food chain. These cows produce gas which has a bigger impact (poor impact) on the ozone than does even SUV's. So, left to roam, if humans did not consume them, there would be less danger to humans. What about dangerous animals, well, I postulate stun guns and reinstating them into their natural environments? We would need to respect though that these creatures deserve space and we humans should give them that.... a space to be free and roam without building houses everywhere.

Handguns~ I am not convinced they are necessary because there is simply no good way to screen out who is 'okay' and who is 'not okay'.

It's very complex.

How do we get ALL guns away~ Saturday Night Specials, their modern equivilants,etc.

[kmac]

FP, I thought it was appropriate to expand the discussion to rifles. Sorry you don't think so.

Rifles do serve a purpose in society, namely animal control, especially deer in my neck of the woods. Other parts of the country have their own control problems. Animals relate very closely with rifles here, maybe not so much in your country.

If I strayed off topic then I will add another thread.

[Hari's Chick]

Oh gosh, no, I was sincere. I am glad though is being given and good discussion?

Elaboratng is good....

Though I do disagree with killing animals, of course. Please do not think I was sarcastic.

[FPSHOT]

Animals relate very closely with rifles here, maybe not so much in your country.

I am happy to reply "no...not in my country". I just don't see the relation. Unless you may mean rifles filled with only drugging content.

[kmac]

I am happy to reply "no...not in my country". I just don't see the relation. Unless you may mean rifles filled with only drugging content.

People are encouraged to hunt in different parts of this country to keep select species in control so they do not either lead to famine in the species or cause harm to humans in populated areas.

This is a sad fact, I know. I myself won't kill insects and would never be found staring down a Deer with a rifle.

[Hari's Chick]

This is a sad fact, I know.


Well, it is not a fact at all? It is ARA propaganda.

[FPSHOT]

People are encouraged to hunt in different parts of this country to keep select species in control so they do not either lead to famine in the species or cause harm to humans in populated areas.

I know what you mean but I am happy that here where I live people are not 'encouraged'.

[kmac]

FP, by encouraged I mean that the hunters are allowed to buy permits from the state.

This serves two purposes.

1. Hunters can do the work that would otherwise need to be done by the state.

2. Overpopulated deer will not be forced into populated areas in search of food which can lead to the spread of disease and potentially deadily, certainly damaging highway accidents.

HC, you are right, I don't know it to be fact for certain as I have not done the research, it is my common knowledge - which may be faulty. I am open to all suggestions.

[kmac]

Well, it is not a fact at all? It is ARA propaganda.

Deer control is sanctioned by our state through the sale of permits, so if in actual fact animal control is not necessary, our state is equally complicit with the NRA. Not just our state I will add, WI, MI, NY, PA etc. all have animal control plans for deer.

You do not need to convince me about the ethics of killing animals for sport, I am against it. I am not yet convinced that animal control is unnecessary; I hope I will be forced to change my opinion. And, if control is necessary, what acceptable alternatives can be implemented and whom should be expected to pay for them.

I hope this is food for thought. I remain open minded about the topic hoping that there are better solutions.

[62hofner]

Someone said earlier in this thread that "guns are evil". Well, I'd say that some people who get their hands on guns are evil.

Bottom line is that guns will never be banned. It's a great "ideal" to sing about and preach about. But the gun is too ingrained in this country's psyche and too much a part of its history (The U.S. I am speaking of). Yes, you can buy your meat at grocery stores now, but some people actually still hunt for food... some people still engage in hunting for food as a way of staying connected to old traditions. Who am I to say they can't?

I still like my idea of the gun rental shop..... but, then again, all a crazed lunatic would need was a few minutes with a rented high-powered rifle, and that fire arm would do as much damage as a purchased one!

What needs to be done is for gun laws to be enforced.... more lengthy background checks and waiting periods for gun permits and sales is necessary, as well. The people who oppose waiting periods I just don't understand and never will.

I have no need or desire to own a fire arm, personally. But I can't decide what my neighbor can or can't own. That's really all there is to it.

[Hari's Chick]

Deer control is sanctioned by our state through the sale of permits, so if in actual fact animal control is not necessary, our state is equally complicit with the NRA. Not just our state I will add, WI, MI, NY, PA etc. all have animal control plans for deer.

You do not need to convince me about the ethics of killing animals for sport, I am against it. I am not yet convinced that animal control is unnecessary; I hope I will be forced to change my opinion. And, if control is necessary, what acceptable alternatives can be implemented and whom should be expected to pay for them.

I hope this is food for thought. I remain open minded about the topic hoping that there are better solutions.

I just remembered I have read recently about how pigeons are being given special feeders on rooftops and in the food there is birth control. Sounds funny, but it is a good nonviolent way to control animal species for those who feel that to be necessary.

Oh, here is a thread on a forum I sometimes go to. Lots of perspectives on this topic... about 11 pages of them!

http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=45020&highlight=NRA

Thanks for correcting my ARA, lol. Duh, me... I have had no sleep recently (so forgive also any poor grammar, typos, misspellings!).

The pigeon thing is cool, eh?

[Mccartneyluvr]

I'm not sure where I stand exactly. I have owned a small .22 caliber rifle since I was 15, my dad was given it by his father and since my dad had no son's I got the gun. I have 2 sons of my own, and while I dont like hunting for sport I have let my oldest take a gun safety course and shoot at targets. I dont think guns should be banned, I do agree we need longer waiting periods, and guns need to be harder to purchase. I honestly dont think I have the answer, but I do like hearing what everyone else has to say.

Oh, coincidently I was once told I was a bad mom for letting my son take the gun safety class.

[sourmilkpinky]

And I consider you a very good mom for letting your son take a safety class, that is just smart :)

[62hofner]

Oh, coincidently I was once told I was a bad mom for letting my son take the gun safety class.


:confused:

[Rellevart]

Apart from that, it is common knowledge that because of the freedom in the US for instance as to being able to buy guns as easily as a newspaper

Again, where "common knowledge" isn't all it should be. It's NOT as easy to buy a gun as it is a newspaper. I agree that it's far too easy, but it's not like I can just go get one at the corner market. Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to go to buy a gun...seriously, I'd have to do research. And I don't know anybody personally who owns a gun other than somebody I know in law enforcement. I've never even SEEN a real gun other than like in a museum or strapped to a police officer.

[Mccartneyluvr]

:confused:

I guess they thought I was being a bad mom for letting my son handle a gun. I lived in a farming community where I knew that almost everyone had a gun in their home(I am not exagerating when I say that), I just wanted my son to know how to be safe around them and that they are not something to play with. If that makes me a bad mom, so be it.

[FPSHOT]

Again, where "common knowledge" isn't all it should be. It's NOT as easy to buy a gun as it is a newspaper. I agree that it's far too easy, but it's not like I can just go get one at the corner market. Honestly, I wouldn't even know where to go to buy a gun...seriously, I'd have to do research. And I don't know anybody personally who owns a gun other than somebody I know in law enforcement. I've never even SEEN a real gun other than like in a museum or strapped to a police officer.

I know Rell that it will not be like that in every town or district in the US but when ever there is a thing up like on the school/uni shootings, here in Europe always starts the debates - in a good way btw - about how having guns in the US is taken so easily. I saw a reconstruction documentary on Discovery of a happening at a US mall where kids from 13 and 14 killed many innocent people and how easily even those young kids could get a hold of guns. They were influenced by some video game.

But I am not pointing at the US only... South America, Africa ... it's full of it.

[FPSHOT]

I guess they thought I was being a bad mom for letting my son handle a gun. I lived in a farming community where I knew that almost everyone had a gun in their home(I am not exagerating when I say that), I just wanted my son to know how to be safe around them and that they are not something to play with. If that makes me a bad mom, so be it.
I think what you did is how it should be done.

[Asha]

Wasn't Harry a sweetie?

He was! We just watched the "Only You" video the other night & saw him on there. Made all the memories of Harry come back! :teeth1:

[Hari's Chick]

He was! We just watched the "Only You" video the other night & saw him on there. Made all the memories of Harry come back! :teeth1:

Awwww! I asked him to sign my "Ognir Ratts" bootleg... and he said "Is this new??" and then had such a laugh! :smile1:

[kmac]

Its not as easy as one thinks to obtain a gun legally.

Excerpt from the ATF website:

ATF Website FAQs (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#f6)

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]

Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year cannot lawfully receive a firearm.

Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32]

[bearkat77]

What needs to be done is for gun laws to be enforced.... more lengthy background checks and waiting periods for gun permits and sales is necessary, as well. The people who oppose waiting periods I just don't understand and never will.

I totally agree. Anyone with a criminal record should not be allowed to own any kind of firearm.

[bearkat77]

I'm not sure where I stand exactly. I have owned a small .22 caliber rifle since I was 15, my dad was given it by his father and since my dad had no son's I got the gun. I have 2 sons of my own, and while I dont like hunting for sport I have let my oldest take a gun safety course and shoot at targets. I dont think guns should be banned, I do agree we need longer waiting periods, and guns need to be harder to purchase. I honestly dont think I have the answer, but I do like hearing what everyone else has to say.

Oh, coincidently I was once told I was a bad mom for letting my son take the gun safety class.

Good for you. Proper gun safety is a must. I own some guns and work for a distribution center that handles sporting goods, hunting supplies and firearms. We all believe in the Second Amendment and will defend it.

[kmac]

I totally agree. Anyone with a criminal record should not be allowed to own any kind of firearm.

Do you include ALL misdemeanors?

[bearkat77]

This country has grown too lax on several laws, including those that deal with crime. IMHO, any person that has any kind of criminal record should not be allowed to own a gun.

[kmac]

This country has grown too lax on several laws, including those that deal with crime. IMHO, any person that has any kind of criminal record should not be allowed to own a gun.

Well, this method would certainly make the criminal background testing much simpler, a simple court record search would handle those disqualifications.

As long as guns are legal to purchase, I don't think there will be much support to exclude those convicted of traffic offenses and other non-violent misdemeanors. If we would make it to this point, a total ban is within our grasp.

[ringo_rama]

If somebody has the audacity to jaywalk, they probably have the audacity to shoot me with their AK-47.

I'd add that anyone with a history of any mental problems should not be allowed to own a gun either.

[kmac]

If somebody has the audacity to jaywalk, they probably have the audacity to shoot me with their AK-47.

:laugh5:

I'd add that anyone with a history of any mental problems should not be allowed to own a gun either.

Item 4 in the ATF post above includes mental issues.

[Clark Kent]

I don't agree with people having guns because they are dangerous. However, it may be a cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people. 11 years ago a madman went on the rampage in a Scottish town and shot dead a load of schoolchildren. It was a dreadful tragedy and the Labour Party, under Tony Blair, said that when they came to office (as they did in 1997) that they'd ban handguns and they did. But it was a stupid, pointless law, since it punished people who do shooting as an Olympic sport and had absolutely no effect on bringing down gun crime. In America those people who want to ban handguns should be aware that it's impossible to create legislation to change the behaviour of people, especially people like that madman in Scotland or that Korean guy who went on the rampage in Virginia.

[sourmilkpinky]

why I like Hunters

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/773/hunterslv6.jpg

[kmac]

It's a myth, there are no real hunters.

[sourmilkpinky]

please don't spoil my fantasy kmac ;)

[Hari's Chick]

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb46/pink_wicca/fangirls3.gif

[sourmilkpinky]

:laugh5: :laugh5: wrong thread :wink2:

and for topic, yeah gun control. I am all for it.

http://supernatural.tv/gallery2/shadow/wmplayer%202006-03-01%2022-37-44-30.jpg

[Hari's Chick]

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r192/ThatBoyerChic/Supernatural%20Stuff/Icons/gunsdontkill.png

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t197/Lockheart20/Supernatural/SN102-0027.jpg



Two guns? Is that natural?

[sourmilkpinky]

:clap1:

hahaha and that is the gay thread ;)

and oh so right :)

[kmac]

please don't spoil my fantasy kmac ;)

Bur you have to watch out for us pacifists.

[PepperlandFrog]

I don't see what 'animals' has to do with this.

I see Hari's Chick is joking about Pinky's remark, but I find it a bit embarrassing to relate guns to animals. What is the relation?

Apart from that, it is common knowledge that because of the freedom in the US for instance as to being able to buy guns as easily as a newspaper causes damage, just like it is in for instance many African and Arab states, just to name a few examples.Thank you FPSHOT, you have expressed my sentiments exactly. That was at best a cruel and inhumane statement, i found it a bit embarrassing.

[PepperlandFrog]

FP, by encouraged I mean that the hunters are allowed to buy permits from the state.

This serves two purposes.

1. Hunters can do the work that would otherwise need to be done by the state.

2. Overpopulated deer will not be forced into populated areas in search of food which can lead to the spread of disease and potentially deadily, certainly damaging highway accidents.

HC, you are right, I don't know it to be fact for certain as I have not done the research, it is my common knowledge - which may be faulty. I am open to all suggestions.

Deer control is sanctioned by our state through the sale of permits, so if in actual fact animal control is not necessary, our state is equally complicit with the NRA. Not just our state I will add, WI, MI, NY, PA etc. all have animal control plans for deer.

You do not need to convince me about the ethics of killing animals for sport, I am against it. I am not yet convinced that animal control is unnecessary; I hope I will be forced to change my opinion. And, if control is necessary, what acceptable alternatives can be implemented and whom should be expected to pay for them.

I hope this is food for thought. I remain open minded about the topic hoping that there are better solutions.I can't believe you are saying these things kmac. Think about what happened to the passenger pigeon and the bison or buffalo. And think about this, that what you are subscribing to is the rather faulty notion that the only way to control animal populations, that is to restore some balance and equilibrium to an already destroyed and hopelessly distressed natural habitat, is to use violent and cruel methods, in this case firearms. Methinks the ARA propaganda thing to make the hunters happy is more on target.

[PepperlandFrog]

If somebody has the audacity to jaywalk, they probably have the audacity to shoot me with their AK-47.I jaywalk all the time i would never shoot any living being with a gun. This makes no sense to me at all perhaps you could expand on this my friend.

I'd add that anyone with a history of any mental problems should not be allowed to own a gun either.And again i ask, whose to decide what a "mental problem" is or is not, and who again decides who really has a certain mental problem or not. I don't say this to be rude or foolish, but your casual and off-hand remarks seem to defy logic.

[Starshyne]

I totally agree with the "mental problem" statement. I think that anyone who has been in a mental institution in his or her life cannot purchase a gun. Not just someone who may have taken some medication for depression or anxiety, but someone who had problems severe enough to warrent a stay in a mental health facility should not have a gun. It seems that time and time again I see on the news where someone has killed another person and that killer was in a mental insititution but was allowed to legally purchase a gun. I know that it is a law in some states to do mental background checks, but not all states. Maybe if it was a law that was enforced, John Lennon's killer wouldn't have been able to buy a gun or the man who killed all those Virginia students.


I didn't start going to Beatlefests until 1994, so I sadly missed Harry! I was looking at buying an autographed Beatlefest program by him on ebay. Him and Mal Evans are the 2 guests that I am sorry to have missed.

Sara

[Hari's Chick]

I am more or less against guns. But still, it is hard to come up with a policy which would not just make it so criminals had guns (through illegal methods). It is a tricky thing. I suppose America's gun policy though can be looked at and compared statistically with other nations. Would the answer be to research which countries have the lowest crimes and adopt their policy? That seems the most scientifically sound thing to do, yet, other cultural factors do come into play which might swing the outcome this way or that.



I totally agree with the "mental problem" statement. I think that anyone who has been in a mental institution in his or her life cannot purchase a gun. Not just someone who may have taken some medication for depression or anxiety, but someone who had problems severe enough to warrent a stay in a mental health facility should not have a gun. It seems that time and time again I see on the news where someone has killed another person and that killer was in a mental insititution but was allowed to legally purchase a gun. I know that it is a law in some states to do mental background checks, but not all states. Maybe if it was a law that was enforced, John Lennon's killer wouldn't have been able to buy a gun or the man who killed all those Virginia students.
Sara

I understand what you are saying, but this presents some problems, I think.
It is not so much a stay in a mental hospital which makes a person different or a threat to society. It is their diagnonsense... Someone may be institutionalized for a variety of reasons which have nothing at all to do with aggressive behaviors. Example... eating disorders? Some of the gentlest people wind up at Camp Happy.

[PepperlandFrog]

I totally agree with the "mental problem" statement. I think that anyone who has been in a mental institution in his or her life cannot purchase a gun. Not just someone who may have taken some medication for depression or anxiety, but someone who had problems severe enough to warrent a stay in a mental health facility should not have a gun. It seems that time and time again I see on the news where someone has killed another person and that killer was in a mental insititution but was allowed to legally purchase a gun. I know that it is a law in some states to do mental background checks, but not all states. Hi Sara. I find your statements to be provocative and interesting. But for me on the surface your casual inferences do totally lack validity and definition, pointing the finger at people with mental problems or worse yet a history of mental problems just doesn't seem to do the trick. And your statements seem to come up short, at least to me. Besides do you even know how infinitesimally small this group of individuals really is? It also surprises me that you have narrowed down the culprits to just those who are labelled as having mental problems - or as someone else has suggested, even those with traffic tickets; that the first thing they think of everyday is to go out and buy a gun and then shoot somebody. Again i ask who decides whom may or may not have mental problems, the severity of probably poorly described mental problems and of course mistaken or arbitrary diagnoses, they all come into play here. For example the Columbine killers were supposedly well adjusted high school students. Your mental health issue would not have stopped these individuals, so that over-simplification doesn't really work as well as it should.

[Hari's Chick]

I didn't start going to Beatlefests until 1994, so I sadly missed Harry! I was looking at buying an autographed Beatlefest program by him on ebay. Him and Mal Evans are the 2 guests that I am sorry to have missed.

Sara


Aww, Harry was such a sweetie... When he was selling kisses for gun control at the Fest, he was so nice an chatted with everyone. :smile1: He put a big star on Ringo's nose on the lp he signed for me.

Mal seemed nice, too. I'd have loved to meet him, too.

[Starshyne]

Hi Sara. I find your statements to be provocative and interesting. But for me on the surface your casual inferences do totally lack validity and definition, pointing the finger at people with mental problems or worse yet a history of mental problems just doesn't seem to do the trick. And your statements seem to come up short, at least to me. Besides do you even know how infinitesimally small this group of individuals really is? It also surprises me that you have narrowed down the culprits to just those who are labelled as having mental problems - or as someone else has suggested, even those with traffic tickets; that the first thing they think of everyday is to go out and buy a gun and then shoot somebody. Again i ask who decides whom may or may not have mental problems, the severity of probably poorly described mental problems and of course mistaken or arbitrary diagnoses, they all come into play here. For example the Columbine killers were supposedly well adjusted high school students. Your mental health issue would not have stopped these individuals, so that over-simplification doesn't really work as well as it should.


Well my husband frequently tells me on these types of issues that I "over simplify" the issues, so I guess I am very guilty of that. :laugh5: I was just stating that maybe looking at the whole mental health issue would be a good place to start. I could be totally wrong, but it seems like at least half of the killings I hear about, the person had spent some time in a mental health facility. So that just seems like a logical place to begin to me. But then, what do I know?

I think for many Beatles fan, especially myself, this is such a sensative issue. I can't help but thinking about John and how his life was taken. And I know that there are thousands of other people who aren't famous, but whose lives were also taken prematurally by the same means. It just seems so wrong to me that a person was able to travel from Hawaii with a gun in his suitcase to NYC for the reason of murdering someone and actually do it. I know that some gun laws have changed since 1980, but could a similar tragedy happen again? I really don't see why not....

[PepperlandFrog]

Well my husband frequently tells me on these types of issues that I "over simplify" the issues, so I guess I am very guilty of that. :laugh5: I was just stating that maybe looking at the whole mental health issue would be a good place to start. I could be totally wrong, but it seems like at least half of the killings I hear about, the person had spent some time in a mental health facility. So that just seems like a logical place to begin to me. But then, what do I know?

I think for many Beatles fan, especially myself, this is such a sensative issue. I can't help but thinking about John and how his life was taken. And I know that there are thousands of other people who aren't famous, but whose lives were also taken prematurally by the same means. It just seems so wrong to me that a person was able to travel from Hawaii with a gun in his suitcase to NYC for the reason of murdering someone and actually do it. I know that some gun laws have changed since 1980, but could a similar tragedy happen again? I really don't see why not....Hi Sara, thank you for your thoughtful reply. So i take it that you are not supportive of the gun-toting macho man imagery that is bandied about quite often, including here? Myself i find it very distasteful, pretentious and obscene. Of course what happened to John Lennon was tragic, but i hardly see how a simple twist in the laws would really change anything.

[ringo_rama]

I jaywalk all the time i would never shoot any living being with a gun. This makes no sense to me at all perhaps you could expand on this my friend.

And again i ask, whose to decide what a "mental problem" is or is not, and who again decides who really has a certain mental problem or not. I don't say this to be rude or foolish, but your casual and off-hand remarks seem to defy logic.

The jaywalk comment was an exaggerated joke. In all seriousness, I think that the proverbial line between a criminal offense and whether or not it should restrict the person from owning a gun can be easily deduced by whether the crime was only worthy of a warning/fine, or if prison time was required. Although I'm sure there have been people thrown in jail for jaywalking, I doubt that there have been too many known murderers that got off with a warning.

I'll stand by the mental problem comment though. I don't think it's possible to totally 'cure' someone who suffered depression, attempted suicide, etc. It may dwindle significantly but I can't imagine it not lingering at least somewhat. I could be wrong, and I don't want to get into a debate about it, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

[beatlelover45223]

This country has grown too lax on several laws, including those that deal with crime. IMHO, any person that has any kind of criminal record should not be allowed to own a gun.

Problem is, these criminals all know how to get their hands on illegal guns to ply their illegal trades, I wish there was a way to get a hold on that, but for every gun recovered by the police there are 3 more out there on the streets and believe me these 13 & 14 year olds, never mind adults, are quite aware of how to obtain illegal street guns, that is a major problem to be getting control of the guns out there illegally!

[Hari's Chick]

I'll stand by the mental problem comment though. I don't think it's possible to totally 'cure' someone who suffered depression, attempted suicide, etc. It may dwindle significantly but I can't imagine it not lingering at least somewhat. I could be wrong, and I don't want to get into a debate about it, but it's better to be safe than sorry.

Never be a therapist... :wink1:

[sourmilkpinky]

For example the Columbine killers were supposedly well adjusted high school students.

No, they were not.

[kmac]

I can't believe you are saying these things kmac. Think about what happened to the passenger pigeon and the bison or buffalo. And think about this, that what you are subscribing to is the rather faulty notion that the only way to control animal populations, that is to restore some balance and equilibrium to an already destroyed and hopelessly distressed natural habitat, is to use violent and cruel methods, in this case firearms. Methinks the ARA propaganda thing to make the hunters happy is more on target.

I am not saying that firearms is the only way. I am open to other ideas as I previously stated. I currently believe that firearms are the least costly and most efficient method. Unfortunately for animal lovers - which I am - viable, less costly methods have not been brought to the fore and received the monetary support of taxpayers.

[kmac]

More evidence that gun control, in and of itself, is not sufficient to reduce murder: the murder rate of Switzerland - liberal gun laws - and Japan - extremely strict gun laws - were equal. Murders occurred at the rate of 1.1 per 100,000 population in both countries. Reference: Interpol, International Crime Statistics, Vol 1983-84.

It appears that there is more to the story than guns by themselves. More food for thought.

[Hari's Chick]

More evidence that gun control, in and of itself, is not sufficient to reduce murder: the murder rate of Switzerland - liberal gun laws - and Japan - extremely strict gun laws - were equal. Murders occurred at the rate of 1.1 per 100,000 population in both countries. Reference: Interpol, International Crime Statistics, Vol 1983-84.

It appears that there is more to the story than guns by themselves. More food for thought.

Really interesting....

That is so interesting to note. I wonder how divergent the various countries are... is there some link which is observable? If it can be observed then maybe that is step one...

Or like George said if everyone who owned a gun would just shoot themselves there would be no more problems. :teeth1:

[beatlelover45223]

Or like George said if everyone who owned a gun would just shoot themselves there would be no more problems. :teeth1:

:laugh5: :laugh5: :laugh5: OMG that is funny and probably ohhh sooo true!