It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Unfortunately when a discussion is about something that you feel so strongly about, someone disagreeing with you can make you feel like the discussion is "out of hand". But what people on different sides of the issue should try to do is understand *why* people feel the way that they do.
To me it seems a no-brainer that there should be laws restricting the access to certain types of weapons, just like we restrict access to owning other things that can harm people or certain behaviours that can hurt people. However, when it comes to guns some people insist that they absolutely must be able to own any type of gun that they wish, and that everything would fall apart if that right is curtailed. So my interest is discovering why they feel that way.
It's been interesting to read the comments under some of the news stories about the movie-theatre shooting. Some commenters say that if there were any restrictions on gun ownership then the constitution would become "useless" and they would no longer live in a democracy. Yet other successful democracies limit gun ownership, and some very repressive states have no restrictions on gun ownership. Some people seem to think that the U.S. is "the greatest country in the world" and it's because of the second amendment. Yet how does the ability to own any gun you want affect education rates, the economy, infant mortality, incarceration rates, levels of health, etc? Comparing those measures against other nations - especially ones that restrict the ownership of guns - seems to indicate that gun ownership does nothing to make a country great. So why do people think that the second amendment is so important?
It appears to me that guns are a huge part of certain people's identities. Sometimes people attach something to their identity and it becomes so important to them that they no longer question it. Think of people who stick by the same political party all of their life regardless of how its policies change. There was a great study in the 90s that showed that a quarter of the population vote for a political party that has policies that are the opposite of what those people support - a triumph of branding over substance. Think about people you know who get into fistfights over the sports team that they support, or how they walk on air for days after that team wins a big game (funny how they say that "we" won although they had nothing to do with the victory). Sometimes the idea of something takes on a huge importance with is disproportionate to the effect that it has on a person's day-to-day life.
When something becomes that important to people - whether its assault weapon ownership, political affiliation, supporting a sports team or a certain band or celebrity - it can cloud the judgement about those things and everything becomes binary. Therefore, people who support something that you don't are "idiots". A politician from another party becomes someone who wants to "destroy" your country. A celebrity who is as popular as the one you like becomes a "insert derogatory homophobic slur here". Which is sad because then we lose the ability to have an intelligent discussion about things.
With America being the country it is, I understand the reasons why there is a feeling of need towards owning weapons, but there needs to be more control, more oversight, more rules and more consequences for breaking those rules. Every person has the right to defend their home, but they don't need an assault rifle to do it.
It might be too late for the folks in the USA, the rest of the world seems to get by fairly well without any artillery, unless you live in some banana republic. :D
While I sympatise with folks who get guided by fear and therefor need a gun, I feel it gives a false security. I have no guns in my house and do not feel any less secure because of it. And then there is always my boken (memory of years of Aikido training).
Looking at the graphs of accidental deaths of kids by guns that should stop people and think again. Or the fact that automatic rifles are not very usefull while hunting, not even on elephants.
There are a lot of countries that have very strict regulations on gun control, and they seem to work generally, with exceptions, fairly well. I do believe that the US has painted itself into a corner with the lack of regulations on weaponery.
The most amazing thing about this whole affair is that the discussion cannot be about gun regulations. BUT it can be about forbidding people to dress up when they go and see a movie in the cinema. This is an argument how crazy the gunlobby has become. O:-)
I agree, the answer lies not at either end of the spectrum, but somewhere in the middle. Having guns is fine, but the wild west attitude needs to change.
On one hand, as a homeowner I believe that if you feel you want to have a handgun to protect your family and property against an intruder, and can pass the checks and can properly store the weapon so that it isn't readily accessible to others, why not. If someone enters my home uninvited, I'm going to defend my children and my home. I am so glad that in my state, you can shoot an intruder dead or otherwise without legal ramifications. I don't have a problem with anyone who is a sportsman who wishes to have a single shot rifle or shotgun. I personally don't respect the trophy hunting type who doesn't eat what they kill or hunts out of season, but that's me. Again, pass the checks that show you're not a criminal or nutbag, I'm fine with it.
The problem is the NRA's incessant lobbying and heavy Republican connections and support that allow freedoms beyond reason. Their stance against mental health checks and suspicious characters would be laughable if they weren't serious. Their fear seems to be that any reasonable restrictions will lead to unreasonable restrictions and so they stand against any restrictions. The fact is, there is no sane argument for citizens to have the right to possess semi automatic assault weapons. None. The vast majority of Americans want them federally banned. This incident is just more proof of that being a reasonable restriction and the NRA leadership should share in the blame for these incidents because they are part of the problem and not the solution. Only law enforcement and military personnel should be allowed to have semi-automatic weapons, and then only on duty. They should not be able to take them home off duty either. Otherwise, ban them. Too bad if Joe Redneck doesn't like it.
Of course, you can't keep illegal dealers from obtaining and selling these weapons off the record. Criminals are going to get their hands on them. Any citizen caught in possession of them should be immediately jailed, whether they have never broken a law or not, the 2nd Amendment is not justification for owning and carrying weapons such as these and if that is the case, yes, it badly needs amending.
I think that would be true only if everyone else has guns. But if you don't have a gun and neither does the guy next to you, what's to be in fear of?
We seem to have plenty of people on this board from the UK and other places that have rather strict gun control laws. So let's pose the question to those who know what that is like better than us: Do you guys feel more or less safe because of the lack of guns in your society?
http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7175
And to ansmer your questions, Grinderman, I don't own a gun (I however has a bow and some arrows, but they're tucked away), don't need one, and I don't feel less safe because I don't have a gun.
This is what happens when people lose their cool just because other disagree with them and have facts to back up their position. The truth is (pal), that "people like me" turns out to be people like you. You didn't even bother to ask if I had a gun or if I've ever shot one. Turns out that I AM a gun owner, and a proud one at that. I also love going to the shooting range. But I don't let my gun do the thinking for me. Nor do I think everyone is out to get me, or get my gun for that matter.
If you were to read my post, you'll see that I did NOT say the entire constitution was antiquated, just that parts of it were. How can anyone read the clause regarding blacks being only 3/5ths of a person NOT think that was antiqated? (If you do, you've got bigger problems than the gun issue.)
If I understand your position on changing the laws, basically what your saying is that it was ok to change the constitution for 275+ years, but not any longer.
If you want to keep gun laws as they are, then I can respect that. I just don't agree with it. (And those are two concepts - respecting and disagreeing - that get muddled up by more and more Americans - including yourself, apperantly.)
But by saying you don't want things to change, you're saying you're willing to have a dozen or so kids slaughtered every so many months. Because that's what's happening out there. It happens on regular basis. And we can rest assured it WILL happen again unless we do something.
Right now there are a dozen or so eight-year olds enjoying their summer vacation who will be killed at 15 by some madman with a semiautomatic weapon. Maybe you see their lives as the price we have to pay for our "freedom". I don't.
I'm going to leave this conversation as well, but it's not because I think it's gotten out of hand. Actually, I've been very pleasently surprised by how thoughful and respectful 99% of the comments have been (on both sides of the issue). That's a pretty damn rare thing to find on the internet and I'd like to thank everyone for that, and for welcoming me here. I'm leaving this conversation because, well, I know there's no convincing people like you of anything no matter how much logic, facts or history you throw at them. And also because I miss talking about all things Bond. Which is why I came here to begin with.
Perfectly stated. The law is well settled that homeowners can defend themselves against intruders.
Where it gets murky, and in my opinion problematic, are the George Zimmerman-type cases, where the NRA pushed for self-defense shooting laws outside the realm of the home, not to mention the even more ridiculous laws allowing people to carry guns to schools.
At some point, we have to trust that the police will protect us, instead of insisting that we be able to defend ourselves with guns in any setting (schools, airports). The "guns everywhere" scenario is not a society; it's a shooting gallery.
Well, here's my perspective as an 'outsider' to this debate. I hope my opinions don't offend anyone.
I live in the uk and don't remotely wish to own any kind of gun. If I discovered a neighbour or a friend had one I'd be a bit surprised. And disturbed if I'm honest.
I find the 'home defense' argument interesting. Has anyone on the board ever needed to use a gun to scare off an intruder? I'm interested in this because in the uk if I shot an intruder I'd probably end up in prison.
There's the argument that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people.' Yes, but I think guns make it easier for one person to kill a lot more people than they would if they were armed with, say, a brick.
As a point of interest, is it harder or easier to get a licence to drive or a gun permit? Does it depend on the state?
Personally speaking I think it's very reasonable to insist that someone has a pretty good reason for owning a semi-automatic and maybe get a few references.
What I find most disturbing is the argument that if everyone was armed they could have shot the guy. I remember the same argument being used after the Virginia Tech shootings. My reaction is that I would like to be able to go to a lecture or the cinema without having to arm myself.
So, for what it's worth, that's a perspective of someone on the outside.
You won't get anywhere, discussing guns is an endless occupation, and not what this thread is for.
May all the victims rest in peace, and I wish a speedy recovery to all those injured, innocent people.