You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
Mole: The easiest answer is a quite simple one: that's how it has always been. The full answer is more complex than that, but that in a nutshell is the reason.
As I've said many times I don't own a gun or wish to own a gun. I do like the fact that if I decide I do want to own a gun in the future (for whatever reason), I can follow the process and get one legally.
Generally speaking, we enjoy being able to do whatever we want to do (within reason), and being told we can't do something we've been allowed to do forever (whatever it is) isn't going to go over well.
Yeah, I get that. But there are so many limitations that are rightfully put in place by government that haven't always been there and still made sense to introduce eventually. For instance, here in Belgium, up until 1977 anyone over 18 could just apply for a driver's license and get it without having to take any tests. It had been like that since the late 1800's and the law had just never been amended. Yet, at a certain point they had to admit that cars are potentially dangerous and just allowing everyone to drive one without tests wasn't a sane proposition anymore. So the law was changed.I'm sure there's comparable examples in US law as well...
It's worth noting that Belgium, a country of roughly 11 000 000 people, had about 2 000 000 gun owners in 2006, which is a ratio of 1 gun per 5.5 people. The US has around 80 000 000 guns for roughly 311 000 000 people, or 1 gun per 4 people. So it's fare to state that the difference in ratios between gun owners and non-gun owners isn't that big between the two countries. In 2006, we had our first big public shooting incident: a whackjob shot 3 people, including one infant (2 years old). By the end of that year, we radically overhauled our legislation from being fairly liberal (sporting and hunting guns could be purchased over the counter, without waiting period; for other guns you needed to apply for a one-time license up front) to the strictest in the world (literally). Now, you need a license for every type of gun you want to buy. The license needs to be renewed every 5 years and in order to get the license you need to pass medical and skill-related tests... every 5 years. If you don't, you not only lose the right to own your gun, your gun is also taken from you, no compensation.
But do note, it's still legal to own a gun, you just need to get a license first... a meaningful license that includes tests and medical checks, just like for a car.
So, I guess my question is why was this possible in Belgium while it is not possible in the US? What's so different between Belgians and Americans?
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
Assuming your numbers are correct, 80,000,000 is a huge number. Let that sink in a bit.
You need a license in the US as well. Since I don't own a gun, I don't know exactly what goes into it, but there is a background check somewhere in the process.
The second ammendment to our constitution states that people can own guns. It's not just something that gradually came along in society; it's part of something called the bill of rights. You can't compare taking that away to forcing people to wear seat belts (for example). That has been considered a basic right in this country since it was founded. To point out the fact that isn't going to change, the people completely opposed to guns don't even bother trying to change the law. Even if they wanted to, it would never pass all the steps needed to change the law. It's not going to happen. You guys really need to move past this. It doesn't matter that you don't understand; it's not changing, so you need to seek other solutions.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
misterID wrote:I'm glad you clarified that, buzz, but I have no idea what I'm advocating for that you disagree with and that we cannot afford to spend money on?
My perception is that you're more worried about spending the money than fixing what needs to be fixed, then spending the money the right way.
I'm not interested in any new spending until we pay for what we've already spent. No more fake stimulous packages and bs like that. We're throwing good money after bad. If we're going to pay more and the gov't cuts spending instead of adding to it, lowering the deficit is doable. Doing one or the other will only result in maintaining (at best). A person couldn't do what the US is doing...why is the government being allowed to do it? When does it stop?
Man, I must be really sending the wrong vibes from my posts, then. I have no problem for an occasional stimulus because it's good for the economy (hence the word stimulus=it stimulates the economy) like an occasional temporary tax cut it does, which is exactly what the bush tax was, a stimulus for the economy: Imagine Obama giving a stimulus every single year for 10 years, that's what the Bush tax cuts are. And why they were supposed to be temporary.
I have no problem fixing what should be fixed, you could easily fix medicare and medicaid without hurting anyone who needs it (I know I've gone on and on about that) while at the same time opening up it for people who can't afford private insurance to get it, that could pay for itself and help pull medicaid out of the whole Bush and Republicans put it in. Social Security is solvent until 2050, and as soon as the economy fully rebounds, which it will, that date will be set back even farther to the point you can't put an expiration date on it when it wont be paid for, which is a little fact some people never mention.
I supported the Obama stimulus, but if you're going to do it, go big and he didn't go big enough. The cash for clunkers, for example, was awesome and a total success. But he could have gone further... Meh. I just think the deficit is the greatest red-herring in the history of politics. We've always been in debt and we will always be in debt. Any economist will tell you the moment our economy turns the corner the debt will be a moot point. I'm all for cutting it down, which can easily be done, but there does seem to be a belief that you can erase it, or send it to zero, and you can't. It won't happen.
But you did make a great point about people living beyond their means. And it made me think, the majority of people I know that call themselves fiscal conservatives, who listen to Rush and watch FOX, hate Obama, blame all their problems on government and taxes... They are usually the people living well beyond their means: Buying the house they can't afford, trading their car in for another car they can't afford, building a pool they don't need when they're already in debt, sending their kids to a school they can't afford, buying things (clothes, appliances, etc.) that are too expensive for their budget. And they blame all their financial problems on taxes.
I swear, I didn't even think about this until you brought it up. They bitch about government spending, budgets and debt, and they can't even live on one themselves or show any self control (or self responsibility) and bitch about hand outs to the poor (who actually need it) and their problems are everyone elses fault but their own. I'm not listening to their lectures anymore, thanks to you. 
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
Assuming your numbers are correct, 80,000,000 is a huge number. Let that sink in a bit.
You need a license in the US as well. Since I don't own a gun, I don't know exactly what goes into it, but there is a background check somewhere in the process.
The second ammendment to our constitution states that people can own guns. It's not just something that gradually came along in society; it's part of something called the bill of rights. You can't compare taking that away to forcing people to wear seat belts (for example). That has been considered a basic right in this country since it was founded. To point out the fact that isn't going to change, the people completely opposed to guns don't even bother trying to change the law. Even if they wanted to, it would never pass all the steps needed to change the law. It's not going to happen. You guys really need to move past this. It doesn't matter that you don't understand; it's not changing, so you need to seek other solutions.
Only certain states have background checks. In Florida you have to wait a few days or a week for them to do a background check and you can be arrested if you're a felon and attempt to buy one. Here in TN you can walk into a gun store and walk out with as many guns as you want. Same with gun shows.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
But you did make a great point about people living beyond their means. And it made me think, the majority of people I know that call themselves fiscal conservatives, who listen to Rush and watch FOX, hate Obama, blame all their problems on government and taxes... They are usually the people living well beyond their means: Buying the house they can't afford, trading their car in for another car they can't afford, building a pool they don't need when they're already in debt, sending their kids to a school they can't afford, buying things (clothes, appliances, etc.) that are too expensive for their budget. And they blame all their financial problems on taxes.
I swear, I didn't even think about this until you brought it up. They bitch about government spending, budgets and debt, and they can't even live on one themselves or show any self control (or self responsibility) and bitch about hand outs to the poor (who actually need it) and their problems are everyone elses fault but their own. I'm not listening to their lectures anymore, thanks to you.
To be quite honest, if people didn't live beyond their means, a good portion of our problems would be solved or at least lessened. Many of the people that need help now need help because of poor decisions they made when they didn't need help.
I got my paycheck this week...it was about $40 lower than it was last year. Actually it was about $100 less, but I decided to purchase an extra week of vacation, so only $40 was due to the tax changes. To compensate, I lowered my 401k to 9% (all I need my 401k to be is 6% - anything else is gravy). I should get a raise in the next couple months and I will bump my 401k back up once that happens. I'd prefer to do that than cut something out of my budget. I'm not putting the money I'm down on credit cards; I'm taking it from somewhere else to replace it. If I had to, I would drop the dish (we don't watch too much TV anyway).
My point is we're not rich. We're not even upper-middle class (well, maybe we are where we currently live, but not overall). We're your traditional middle-class family and we worked hard to get there since we both came from lower-middle class families. We lived on mac & cheese when we first moved in together because that's all we could afford. Now we're much better off than that. Because we've been responsible, we've been able to survive the down times. We didn't do anything that anybody else couldn't have done. We're not special. I don't understand why everybody doesn't do what we do. I don't get it.
/rant
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
Only certain states have background checks. In Florida you have to wait a few days or a week for them to do a background check and you can be arrested if you're a felon and attempt to buy one. Here in TN you can walk into a gun store and walk out with as many guns as you want. Same with gun shows.
Good to know. There's a place I would support starting then...
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
The second ammendment to our constitution states that people can own guns. It's not just something that gradually came along in society; it's part of something called the bill of rights. You can't compare taking that away to forcing people to wear seat belts (for example). That has been considered a basic right in this country since it was founded. To point out the fact that isn't going to change, the people completely opposed to guns don't even bother trying to change the law. Even if they wanted to, it would never pass all the steps needed to change the law. It's not going to happen. You guys really need to move past this. It doesn't matter that you don't understand; it's not changing, so you need to seek other solutions.
Well, the US was founded in 1776, the Bill of Rights was only proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1791 so I'd hesitate to say that it was a basic right since the country was founded, but that's nitpicking... I get what you're saying.
But in the end, a constitution is just a law like any other (the difference being that the process for changing or amending it has stricter requirements than standard laws: 2/3 majority in senate and house AND ratification by 75% of the states), and every country has them. Ours is a good 60 years younger than yours but the basic setup is the same, including things like freedom of speech in articles 19 and 25 of our constitution. In the US, since the passing of the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments), the constitution has seen another 17 amendments since 1791. Why are the first 10 so much more important? Just because of the name?
On top of that, the actual second amendment is a one-liner without limitations. Yet, so many limitations have been put in place since, both by states and the federal government (no guns for underaged people, background checks, waiting periods, etc...) that have been confirmed as legal by supreme court it seems strange that those were possible whereas further restrictions to help reduce the number of mass shootings would be impossible.
I hardly think anyone is advocating to completely nullify the second amendment, but it surely needs to be updated to our current reality. Step one would be to get people to stop glorifying gun ownership
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
But in the end, a constitution is just a law like any other (the difference being that the process for changing or amending it has stricter requirements than standard laws: 2/3 majority in senate and house AND ratification by 75% of the states), and every country has them. Ours is a good 60 years younger than yours but the basic setup is the same, including things like freedom of speech in articles 19 and 25 of our constitution. In the US, since the passing of the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments), the constitution has seen another 17 amendments since 1791. Why are the first 10 so much more important? Just because of the name?
On top of that, the actual second amendment is a one-liner without limitations. Yet, so many limitations have been put in place since, both by states and the federal government (no guns for underaged people, background checks, waiting periods, etc...) that have been confirmed as legal by supreme court it seems strange that those were possible whereas further restrictions to help reduce the number of mass shootings would be impossible.
I hardly think anyone is advocating to completely nullify the second amendment, but it surely needs to be updated to our current reality. Step one would be to get people to stop glorifying gun ownership
The bill of rights is a statement about the basic rights you hold as a US citizen. These are the core values our entire country was founded on. If you can't understand why that's important, I can't help you understand it any clearer.
Nobody here is arguing against "limitations" or regulations. There seems to be a disconnect. The issue is where the "limitations" come in. The second amendment isn't about protecting your home from an intruder (though that is obviously included in what it allows). It is about protecting the people from the gov't. People aren't protected from the gov't if all they have is a single load weapon.
I don't think any of the "pro-gun" people here are gun nuts. I don't think any of us think the gov't is trying to take over (there are people out there that believe that and that the gov't manufactured these incidents to take guns away from the people). I think we believe in protecting our rights.
I also don't know that anyone is glorifying gun ownership. It's not like everybody owns one. That isn't the point either. The point is almost everyone can own one. Sometimes there's as much protection from a perceived threat as there is from a real one. That's why some people put burglar alarm signs at their house when they don't actually have an alarm.
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
Nobody here is arguing against "limitations" or regulations. There seems to be a disconnect. The issue is where the "limitations" come in. The second amendment isn't about protecting your home from an intruder (though that is obviously included in what it allows). It is about protecting the people from the gov't. People aren't protected from the gov't if all they have is a single load weapon.
Might not be anybody here, but the NRA is, in fact they are arguing that there are already too many regulations and limitations... And the perception is that there's a lot of support for the NRA's position among American citizens.
And just for clarity, I understand the need to have a constitution that protects the people from government, I'm all for that. Democracy is the greatest value we have and we as people should protect it at all costs. That's why freedom of speech is so important, that's why what you really need to protect is the right to vote, the right to form a political party, freedom of the press, unbiased news organizations, equality of people, etc. How does a very specific right for a very specific thing such as the right to own and bear a gun fit in that list? It's just so arbitrary, might as well be the right to put anti-personnel mines in your front yard, at least no one can argue that's not for self-defense...
What I meant with the glorification of gun ownership remark is this: there really is not that much of a difference between the effective gun ownership laws and restrictions in the US and other - comparably free - countries, and yet nowhere in the world are there as many mass shootings as in the US. Obviously the reason for that is not the general availability of guns: as I pointed out before other countries have comparable gun-to-people ratios. However, in no other country is there an organization such as the NRA that claims the moral high ground when they actively promote guns as a solution to problems of violence. The fact that these guys are not mocked into irrelevance speaks volumes to the reverence some (and apparently a large number of) Americans have for things that are designed to kill. Just a general change in attitude would go a long way towards solving a lot of those problems, and the ability to challenge the NRA's position without getting lost in almost religious discussions about the 10 commandm... sorry, amendments.
So yes, we all should recognize owning guns as a right, but not more than that. Having more of them is not gonna solve anything
Re: Elementary School Shooting in US
You see, the NRA makes a case for that solution because quite frankly nobody has disproven their theory. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they can point to the fact that none of these things ever happen in places where there are guns present. Nobody goes into police stations shooting up the place, yet I promise you a lot of people aren't big fans of the po po. As insane as what they propose sounds on the surface, I can't flat out tell them they are wrong either.
There are absolutely people here (in the US) that love their guns. That is why I said you could never pass a law changing the right to bear arms...there are too many people that don't want the right taken away from them without counting the gun lobby people. Once you include the gun lobby people, there's no chance you could get enough support to ban guns. That also doesn't mean that everybody in support of gun rights is crazy either. I don't even own a gun and I support gun owner rights. I think you're confusing their reverence for their rights with their reverence for the gun.
