USA and its strange ideas on censorship

[toef]

Originally Posted by quexos

You're right, sorry for "putting a weapon on your head" and hijacking your thread. Let's talk about censorship.
I am totally against it through and through. Any other opinions ?

I agree a little bit with everyone in this thread, but what about people who buy swords? A sword's primary purpose is to hurt people, yet I doubt that 99% of people who buy them now buy them as a weapon. I know quite a few people who have swords or other huge knives hanging on their walls in their homes, and they've never actually taken them down to swing around.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by toefer

I agree a little bit with everyone in this thread, but what about people who buy swords? A sword's primary purpose is to hurt people, yet I doubt that 99% of people who buy them now buy them as a weapon. I know quite a few people who have swords or other huge knives hanging on their walls in their homes, and they've never actually taken them down to swing around.

For anyone who brings up the guns/primary use excuse for hating on guns, I give them the following example.

I own a Bow and Arrow set.

At 100 meters {or so} I'm pretty damned accurate {if I do say so myself} I'm not saying I could thread a needle or anything, but I could probably hit a man-sized object.

It's primary purpose is to kill. I use it for target shooting.

I have not killed anyone with it, and I have yet to hear of many {if any at all} deaths due to bow & arrow. Yet, there it is, If I were pushed I COULD use it to kill someone, it might be someone that the accusing person loves, it might not, I fail to see the difference.

Now, wanting to take away a Bow & arrow from a law abiding citizen seems pretty damned stupid, now doesn't it?

Logan

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

For anyone who brings up the guns/primary use excuse for hating on guns, I give them the following example.

I own a Bow and Arrow set.

At 100 meters {or so} I'm pretty damned accurate {if I do say so myself} I'm not saying I could thread a needle or anything, but I could probably hit a man-sized object.

It's primary purpose is to kill. I use it for target shooting.

I have not killed anyone with it, and I have yet to hear of many {if any at all} deaths due to bow & arrow. Yet, there it is, If I were pushed I COULD use it to kill someone, it might be someone that the accusing person loves, it might not, I fail to see the difference.

Now, wanting to take away a Bow & arrow from a law abiding citizen seems pretty damned stupid, now doesn't it?

Logan

That line more or less proves my point.
People who want to kill other people will not use a bow & arrow (or a sword), because they're too unweildy, indiscreet, require some training, and are less guaranteed to give a "one-shot" kill.
With a gun it's point and shoot. They'll use a gun.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by toefer

I agree a little bit with everyone in this thread, but what about people who buy swords? A sword's primary purpose is to hurt people, yet I doubt that 99% of people who buy them now buy them as a weapon. I know quite a few people who have swords or other huge knives hanging on their walls in their homes, and they've never actually taken them down to swing around.

200 years ago a sword's primary purpose was to hurt/kill.
Nowadays in modern societies they're generally bought as ornamental objects.
I personally don't see the point, but some people like looking at a samurai sword hanging on their wall.

I'm sure some people now are presuming I'm some sort of lily-livered European liberal.
I'm not, I just really don't get how some people don't see the connection between the amount of guns in the US and the number of gun murders. Even more amazing is that some people think that the solution is MORE guns, not less.

[jamclaur]

Another interesting thing about censorship is that all the ratings boards are demanding that rappers stop using guns on their album covers and talking about guns in their songs. They even refuse billboards with rappers carrying guns...

BUT... James bond with a gun is sexy and cool. And it's plastered everywhere.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Period. (unless it's an accident...)

BUT... the main issue here is this. If we BAN guns COMPLETELY... UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY. as in NO LONGER sold to anyone... Those that want to kill are going to buy it illegally. Those that want it for protection or sport wont be allowed.

my 2 cents.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by jamclaur

Another interesting thing about censorship is that all the ratings boards are demanding that rappers stop using guns on their album covers and talking about guns in their songs. They even refuse billboards with rappers carrying guns...

BUT... James bond with a gun is sexy and cool. And it's plastered everywhere.

But James Bond is white.

Originally Posted by jamclaur

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Period. (unless it's an accident...)

BUT... the main issue here is this. If we BAN guns COMPLETELY... UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY. as in NO LONGER sold to anyone... Those that want to kill are going to buy it illegally. Those that want it for protection or sport wont be allowed.

my 2 cents.

Yes, at face value "people kill people". A gun can't kill someone without human interaction.
Of course there are a lot of bad people out there. Not everyone who owns a gun is a bad person, but a lot of bad people own guns.
Hunting and target shooting are perfectly legitimate sports (I'm hoping to try for myself actually, a friend of mine is in a local gun club).
In an ideal world (which we obviously don't live in) people shouldn't feel the need to have a gun at their bedside to protect their home & family, but I accept that some people feel more secure doing that. I wonder though is that a self fulfilling prophecy; a burglar breaking into a house in America knows there's a reasonable chance that someone in the house is going to have a gun, so he carries a gun for his protection. In an ensuing confrontation where each person has a gun, chances are someone is going to get hurt (hopefully the right person).

You say that if guns are banned, those that want to kill will buy them illegally. So do you agree that people are currently buying guns legally to kill?

[jamclaur]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

But James Bond is white.




Yes, at face value "people kill people". A gun can't kill someone without human interaction.
Of course there are a lot of bad people out there. Not everyone who owns a gun is a bad person, but a lot of bad people own guns.
Hunting and target shooting are perfectly legitimate sports (I'm hoping to try for myself actually, a friend of mine is in a local gun club).
In an ideal world (which we obviously don't live in) people shouldn't feel the need to have a gun at their bedside to protect their home & family, but I accept that some people feel more secure doing that. I wonder though is that a self fulfilling prophecy; a burglar breaking into a house in America knows there's a reasonable chance that someone in the house is going to have a gun, so he carries a gun for his protection. In an ensuing confrontation where each person has a gun, chances are someone is going to get hurt (hopefully the right person).

You say that if guns are banned, those that want to kill will buy them illegally. So do you agree that people are currently buying guns legally to kill?

the kids in columbine got there's legally. BUT i'd say the majority of people that plan killings are going to try to get one illegally.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by Rob71

You too.

Besides, I think our minds are made up and all we'd be doing is

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

My head always feels like this when I get into these kind of discussions. I really need to learn that you can't argue rationally with folks whose opinions are based on emotions and not facts.

I agree, none of us are going to change the other's mind on this subject, but it's always good to hear and discuss other people's opinions, even when they're the absolute opposite to your own.

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by jamclaur

the kids in columbine got there's legally. BUT i'd say the majority of people that plan killings are going to try to get one illegally.

What about that guy in Virginia (I think) last year? He was armed to the teeth with all sorts of heavy duty stuff.
Presuming he bought them legally (I don't know he did for sure, so don't jump on me if he didn't!!), he walked into some specialised gun store, passed all the tests and legally bought those guns. There are obviously cracks in the system if someone can do that.

And why go to the hassle of buying a gun illegally with all the risks that entails , when you can buy one legally so easily.
And come on, if there are 200 million privately owned guns in America it can't be THAT difficult to buy one!!!

[camper]

Wait.....Europeans are here lecturing us on violence.

Very funny. Do they even go to their own soccer games???

camper

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by camper

Wait.....Europeans are here lecturing us on violence.

Very funny. Do they even go to their own soccer games???

camper

portrait-williams.JPG

[horseflesh]

Originally Posted by camper

Wait.....Europeans are here lecturing us on violence.

Very funny. Do they even go to their own soccer games???

camper

Nobody's lecturing anyone!!
We're having a decent discussion, we may not agree (on practically anything regarding this subject, LOL) but we're debating it none the less.

Thanks for your input.

[cravnsn]

OK, let’s blend the two themes this thread has taken on – How many times have you shot & killed someone in a video game? Did a real flesh & blood person actually die when you did? How many times have you seen someone shot & killed on a television program, or on a movie? Did you say to yourself “I can’t believe they shot that guy for this movie!”

The various media in the entertainment industry has saturated our psyche with visions of violence to the point where the lines between reality & fantasy are seriously blurred. I have a feeling that for some people with a gun, shooting someone is of no real consequence, or at least not as they are committing the act. It sinks in as they see the person lying wounded or dead, and if not then, when the police are looking for them. By then, it’s already too late.

Now, imagine this – let’s say that tomorrow when you woke up, ALL guns were gone – mysteriously taken overnight, absolutely NO ONE has a gun. The instances of murder would fall off dramatically because the weapon of choice, the one “without consequence” would no longer be at hand.

[camper]

Originally Posted by cravnsn

Now, imagine this – let’s say that tomorrow when you woke up, ALL guns were gone – mysteriously taken overnight, absolutely NO ONE has a gun. The instances of murder would fall off dramatically because the weapon of choice, the one “without consequence” would no longer be at hand.

Now, imagine this...people killed each other BEFORE THERE WERE GUNS!!

No doubt you would see deaths by firearms decrease, but I will guarantee you that there would be an increase in deaths by an equal percentage of every other weapon to make up for the loss.

You really think the Bloods & the Crips would say "You know, without our guns we should sit around and rub lotion on each others' backs and read the Gossip Girls books aloud to one another and enjoy this fine fall day"?

camper

[scott87]

WOW this has gone way off topic people

I see this thread getting banned anytime soon....

First of alll guns aint the problem...its the people carrying them

To be honest everything is decided by the person carrying the weopen, not the actual weopen itself. Someone who is unstable to have a gun, should not have one. Its like a drunk driver should not have a car, his actions decided what he would do.

Did you not know shooting is a sport?i dont want to get involved in this argument, im simply saying what i think.

[scott87]

Originally Posted by camper

Wait.....Europeans are here lecturing us on violence.

Very funny. Do they even go to their own soccer games???

camper

ITS FOOTBALL lol

[Marquoz]

Originally Posted by cravnsn

Now, imagine this – let’s say that tomorrow when you woke up, ALL guns were gone – mysteriously taken overnight, absolutely NO ONE has a gun. The instances of murder would fall off dramatically because the weapon of choice, the one “without consequence” would no longer be at hand.

There would still be knives, blunt objects, razors, numerous other objects that can be weapons. Look at jail, how many people get shanked in jail? There are no guns there, but there is still plenty of violence.

[jamclaur]

I agree. we should get back on topic before this gets shut down.

[scott87]

The ratings system is a joke...even in the uk it is a joke

I find it even wierd that film companys will tone down a film so it hits a certain audience and rating

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by horseflesh

But James Bond is white.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything. A rapper (regarless of color) with a gun sends a clear message to the target audience that guns are an acceptable part of the rap music lover's life. This is not the message that needs to be sent to the kids buying this crap. Promoting legal, safe and responsible gun ownership is one thing. Sending a message that you need a gun "like me" if you want to be cool is a whole different thing. Bond is a government agent who uses a weapon in his line of work (no different than a soldier or law-enforcement individual). Apples vs. lug nuts.

Originally Posted by horseflesh

What about that guy in Virginia (I think) last year? He was armed to the teeth with all sorts of heavy duty stuff.
Presuming he bought them legally (I don't know he did for sure, so don't jump on me if he didn't!!), he walked into some specialised gun store, passed all the tests and legally bought those guns. There are obviously cracks in the system if someone can do that.

First, he wasn't "armed to the teeth". He walked around with a pistol or two, and lots of extra ammo. Yes, he purchased the weapons legally, but there was a HUGE crack in the background check system, the fault of which can be traced back to the ACLU and their likes. The guy had been treated for some form of mental illness (which would automatically make him not eligible to purchase a gun), but due to some "patient's rights" privacy crap, those records were not made available during the checks.

Originally Posted by horseflesh

And why go to the hassle of buying a gun illegally with all the risks that entails , when you can buy one legally so easily.
And come on, if there are 200 million privately owned guns in America it can't be THAT difficult to buy one!!!

Again, see my earlier comments. The fact is, if you have a criminal record, you cannot legally purchase a gun. I wish I knew the statistics, but I would wager my entire arsenal that 90%+ of crimes committed with a gun are committed by individuals with prior arrests/convictions for something else. These individuals obtained their weapons illegally, and no amount of additional legislation would prevent that.