brit-gob 9 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 The Japanese are proud of that fact, db. And did you know, there are 4 seasons in Japan? Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 The gun threshold concept was just casual posturing on my behalf, not something I strongly argue in favour of. The more I think about the topic the more I feel that the penultimate definition of America is as a gun nation, both internationally and domestically. Guns on tv, guns in schools, guns in the home, guns on the street, guns in the hand of the good guys, guns in the hand of the bad guys, guns in politics, guns in other countries. The Star Spangled Banner should be renamed the Star Spangled Cannon. Link to post Share on other sites
TeamZ 0 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 There are very few guns in many parts of the US - it is not something that is prevalent all over the country. Link to post Share on other sites
echineko 1 Posted April 8, 2003 Share Posted April 8, 2003 I hope Japan dont change about it also. Link to post Share on other sites
barok 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Yep, something about that gun threshold - in the inner cities, it has definately been surpassed. It has simply become too dangerous to live in these areas if you don`t have a gun or three. The simple truth is that America HAS let it`s gun control problem get out of control, so for many good people, you need a gun to not get robbed attacked in your house at night. You have an NRA sticker on your front door, and on your backdoor and on your window - nobody will f""k with you, at least not to rob you. And who has a gun and who doesn`t have a gun is simply the kindov info that get`s passed along in the inner city. Whether it`s right or wrong is not what I am talking about, or think about when I live in the States, I am thinking about what the best way to protect myself, and my family, if I get one. And for me, unless I lived in the inner city, a handgun wouldn`t be the solution. Link to post Share on other sites
snobee 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Kind of a weird subject at the mo' coz in this sleepy little city of Takamatsu we had a "Gun" incident last week. A seemingly placid innocuous guy -American, married to a local woman - decided to hold up a conbini with a real pistol(magnum according to the local press) Met him once last year and appeared totally straight mellow type. Apparently having recent marital difficulties, BUT jeez, being an identifiable foreigner waving around a gun in Japan is not too clever. Must have been the proverbial cry for help. Been a bit of a topic here the past few dayz. Which all begs a coupla questions - What's he doing with a gun? How did he get the gun? Sadly his short term prospects don't look too rosy. He'd have attracted a lot less attention with a baseball bat. Bloody guns. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I wonder if he used a discise (sp?) Those nikuman are strangely addictive. Link to post Share on other sites
zwelgen 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I know a guy that used to live in Califonia. He had a huge rotweiler and he had a couple of guns. When we were talking about it at first I thought "this guy is crazy" I mean I could not COULD NOT imagine shooting or killing anyone. But then again I have never been in a situation or anywhere near a situation where I would have to even contemplate it and when push came to shove and I had my family there and some M.Fer is seriously threatening us I have to honestly say I dont know. I guess where I grew up guns just werent an issue. Farmers and hunters had them but your average joe on the street had never even seen one. Only gangs really had guns and they usually used them on each other. Its easy to say "guns are bad" and "guns are dangerous" because in NZ there really is no need for them (unless you are a mongrel mob/black power member or something). But if most people had guns and were prepared to use them then I think that I might have a handgun beside my bed. To put it in a way that I can relate to better, I dont sleep with my windows open here at night in the stiffling summer. I think Id probably be ok but what if? I sure as hell know that if someone came into my house with me there alone and wanted to have their wicked way with me I wouldnt hesitate to inflict some serious harm on that person if I had to and could. Killing them might be a bit extreme but I would seriously mess them up if I could. Now if the chances of that person having a gun and shooting me were high, like in places in the US, then yeah, maybe I would have a gun that I just might be able to use first. And I sure as hell would get me a big dog with sharp teeth that might do the dirty work. Not saying that they are good, and I wouldnt dream of buying one anywhere but when there is "gun saturation" it really is too late IMHO Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 When the situation is so bad that you have to have a gun to shoot them before they can get you - do you think its time to shift? I heard a large number of those shot are shot with their own gun. Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Perhaps that is the greatest tragedy with guns, the number of people killed accidentally is quite high. Bowling for Columbine has a bit in it about some hunter who dressed his dog up in hunting gear, hat, jacket, gun and all for a comic photo. When the guy stepped back to take the picture, the dog moved, the gun fell over and discharged and the good ol' boy dropped dead. Sheer poetry. I actually enjoy shooting and in the past used guns for hunting and target shooting and in all sorts of other things, but for the vast majority of situations in which joe average finds himself, guns actually make matters worse. Zwelgen's very reasonable reaction to a possible threat demonstrates the flawed logic in the whole pro -gun ownership argument. It is nothing short of a mini an arms race. The fear that the other person might have a gun means that both sides feel the need for guns, resulting in a certainty that both sides will arm themselves. Incidentally and I'm sure all the bush lawyers on this forum will have an opinion on this, but in many jurisdictions it is difficult to demonstrate that the using a gun against an intruder is lawful even where the intruder is armed and forget about it if the intruder is not armed but you think he is. And just to really round off my rant - unless they are very well trained, keeping big, aggressive guard dogs in the burbs is also pretty questionable. Link to post Share on other sites
jared 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Quote: the good ol' boy dropped dead Thats stretching it a bit. try shot through the calf Link to post Share on other sites
damian 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 all these people that own pistols probably also do not realise just how difficult it is to hit a person even at 20 metres. Not really part of the gun debate. Link to post Share on other sites
nekobi 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 yeah i can't see the logic in having a gun for protection. if someone did break into your house- would you really want to shoot them?? could you bring yourself to be that cruel to another human being? and if they had a gun, would yall get into a shoot out like it's the wild west? even if you just want to brandish the gun (and then the other guys could get scared and fire), what about accidental firings by you or others who may think there arent any bullets in the gun? if you are really scared of prowlers and want to protect yourself, just get some bars on your windows and big locks on your doors. thats how all apts are in west philly, where my friends have heard drive-bys while they were chilling out in their apt in front of the tube. i dont care how silly a fortified door or window would look, it's a lot better than packing. Link to post Share on other sites
Glen Falting 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Jared, sorry, I thought the guy was killed, maybe next time... Link to post Share on other sites
zwelgen 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by jared: When the situation is so bad that you have to have a gun to shoot them before they can get you - do you think its time to shift? Yeah agreed there. I dont think I could live in that kind of climate of fear. Whats the point when there are much less angsty places to live. Link to post Share on other sites
snobee 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 A couple of many links. http://www.loga.org/GunPolicy.htm http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/guns/guns.romance.html Interestingly, most US gun deaths are suicides and of the homicides most are committed by friends, relatives, lovers ...... Perhaps "The bogeyman" is irrationally feared. Link to post Share on other sites
rajeem 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Or perhaps friends and relatives are the Bogey man. Link to post Share on other sites
miteyak 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by db: all these people that own pistols probably also do not realise just how difficult it is to hit a person even at 20 metres. Not really part of the gun debate. A bigger issue is that yer average well-balanced individual with a morality level greater than Saddam with a migraine finds it quite hard to justify a death sentence for B and E. Many cases have been cited where valiant household vigilantes have been shot with their own gun, or at least shot whilst pointing a gun and trying to weigh up the intentions of a late night peruser. Link to post Share on other sites
big-will 7 Posted April 19, 2003 Share Posted April 19, 2003 Exactly, zwelgen. Link to post Share on other sites
1 4 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 Isn't it crazy that we have got to the stage where in some societies where 'with guns' is deemed as necessary and/or not particularly a bad thing? Mad..... Link to post Share on other sites
badmigraine 0 Posted April 21, 2003 Share Posted April 21, 2003 "Banning" guns won't do much of anything in the US. Look how well the "ban" on pot or cocaine or any other illegal drug works... They will still come in. Maybe the number would be greatly reduced but that is not going to help much right now. Why? There are millions of guns floating around all over the place in the US. Pistols, shotguns, rifles, semi-automatic and antique guns, you name it. MILLIONS of them. And most are unregistered and untraceable, so you can't officially just call them in. Banning them just prevents most ordinary people from being able to buy them, leaving them with no way to deter people out there with guns from doing the bad things they might do. Especially BAD people! What to do about this? I have no good solution to this problem. Nobody does. And yeah, it really is interesting how a place like Canada, which has a relatively high gun ownership level, has such low levels of gun-related crime. I lived in Switzerland for awhile as a boy. Most every Swiss household has an M-1 rifle or the like in their house...they all had mandatory military training and they have guns and you don't see them blowing each other away in the streets. One suggestion I have is to legalize and regulate and tax "illegal" drugs, the way we regulate alcohol and tobacco. The price of drugs would come way, way down, and it would no longer be the stuff of gang wars and the violent out from a dead-end ghetto life. The tax money, which would be huge, would go to hospitals and schools and other fine programs (until dirty politicians, as usual, got their pork-barrel hands on it). It has been suggested that the tax revenue from such drug sales could be used to pay $200 or so per weapon sold to the govt. or the police, no questions asked. That is not a bad idea. I suppose, in legalizing drugs, you'd have an increase in various other social problems due to the relative ease of obtaining illegal drugs. However, the total human cost would be a mere fraction of the cost of maintaining the vastly expensive, hugely hypocritical "War on [some] Drugs" which clearly does not work, costs an unbelievable amount of money, results in so many murders, destroyed families/lives, perpetuates a ghetto lifestyle and racist stereotypes, etc. US jails and courts are clogged with petty "crooks" who sold a few joints or snorted coke. This costs and incredible amount of money, and even results in early release of other offenders due to triple or even quadruple overcrowding of prisons. Apparently it costs billions each year to equip and maintain all these drug police, case workers, paramilitary types, surveillance equipment, weapons, etc. That's MY tax dollars at work. It costs the state about $25,000 per person to keep a human in jail. More of MY tax dollars... Gee, my college room, board and tuition was about the same as that, and I had to borrow/pay the whole darn amount myself! Well, just one view. Link to post Share on other sites
METAL 0 Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 Just watched "Bowling..." Very interesting, but a very sad state of affairs.... Definitely worth a watch. Link to post Share on other sites
echineko 1 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I saw it too. It is very interesting - sometimes I don't know if joke or real. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts