|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > The Real World > World Events > It's time to pull out alright . . . | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Frank
Adept
      
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 630
| Posted 8/31/2006 5:58 AM (GMT -5) |   | More restrictive gun laws obviously don't help. Just as they don't curb drug use, either. Rather, we must ask ourselves how we can discourage the use of guns and drugs in a positive way. Surely, even in the poorest of neighborhoods, not eveyone wants to get high and certainly most people don't want to get shot.
I grew up in greater Montreal, an area of a million-plus, where drug use has always been common enough but murder is not. Now I live in Florida where both are rampant, as in many states. It was quite a culture shock for me. I used to watch films about urban decay and I thought, it's not really that bad, they're just exaggerating cuz its a movie. But when I got here I was astounded. I've seen many neighborhoods, even in small towns, that really are like in the movies and worse...It makes one feel so small and helpless.
I own and operate a small business on a street that stradles the line between safe and unsavory. I've been broken into once and robbed at gunpoint once, both in my first six months of operation. I modified my back door and my hours of operation to make myself less of a target and so far it's worked. That was four years ago. It wasn't the first time I'd had a gun pointed in my face--I've worked in retail most of my life and got held up before, when working for someone else--but it's different when it's your place and your money and your customers there in the room with you.
My wife chose our appartment carefully. When we first moved our business into it's current location I wanted to move into the appartment complex nextdoor to our business park. I'm glad we didn't because I later found out it was a hotbed of violent crime, yet it looked relatively safe at first glance. The complex we live in is much safer and looks more attractive but even here we've had neighbors who sold drugs and took "incalls".
I give what I can to the local Teens Against Drugs program, which isn't much but it's all I can afford right now. I'm still a struggling small business owner and it'll be years yet before my business truely makes a profit. Sometimes I just want to move but where to? It's not easy choosing a place without spending a lot of time there to make sure it's better overall than where we live now. And moving a retail business is like starting over from scratch. It takes years to build a clientelle and I don't want to start over again. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Dave
Master of the Domain
Date Joined Aug 2003
Total Posts : 696
| Posted 8/31/2006 9:34 AM (GMT -5) | | I agree with the part about drugs, but from a personal liberty point of view. If I want to take drugs, or you want to, you should be able to. Whatever drugs you want, bought legally with a doctor's prescription or after registering for a governemnt drug user's card. However, when your drug use impacts someone else (as in the case of drunk driving) there needs to be a penalty.
For guns, I disagree. I think handguns should be outlawed - totally. They should all be gathered up and destroyed. Notice I said hand guns, not rifles or shotgun. If you want a gun for sport or hunting, then you keep it locked in a local armory. When you want to use it, you schedule it for checkout. If you don't bring it back when you're supposed to, you find someone knocking on your door to get it and hitting you with a hefty fine. Do it too often and spend some time in the cooler.
But handguns? What use do they have? None. They only thing they are good for is shooting people. They should only be carried by law enforcement - that's it. The penalty for getting caught with a hand gun should be severe - mandatory 5 years in prison. Illegally selling hand guns? 20 years. Automatic life without parol for anyone who uses a gun in the commission of a crime.
Guns don't kill people, people WITH guns kill people. Get guns off the street and the murder rate would plummet. Legalize drugs and the crime rate would plummet.
Dave
SFReader Webmaster
| | Back to Top | | |
|
von Darkmoor
Small Press Publisher (and Dancer still)
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 3119
| Posted 8/31/2006 10:24 AM (GMT -5) | | My oh my, what have I begun! :)
Dave, I entirely agree on the drug issue. It's one area the government should stick its nose in - legalize its use and possession, operate its production and distribution no different than prescription narcotics, or beer, or legalized prostitution = clean, safe, very profitable, no more money, time and resources wasted chasing and fighting something we cannot obviously defeat. I've long wondered why our capitalistic mind has not grasped this yet and turned the tables. Only thing I can come up with is that the government is already making money at it and doesn't want to share ;)
Gun control, however, won't work that way. While you are probably correct in wondering at the purpose of handguns, more and more restrictive gun control only - only - effects those people who were obeying the previous gun regulations. Only the 'good' citizenry lose their weapons, only the denizens of a nation who don't care to own or use something (guns in this instance) support and have no qualms about such restrictions. As we've agreed on the drug issue, we (America) don't have a good track record at keeping prohibited items out of our country. Think we can do any better with guns than with drugs?
Our current gun laws and regulations are sufficient, more than sufficient, to deter gun use. We don't enforce them. The culprits here are the orchestrators of our legal system. Start holding them accountable for their lack of actions, lack of enforcement of the letter and intent of our laws, and suddenly things will run smoother, getting caught for committing a violent crime will actually have a bite to it. America prosecutes its white collar criminals much harsher than all the rest - we're much more interested in protecting our money than in protecting our people.
You can historically look at any nation that restricted the weaponry possession of its people and realize that it effects only cosmetic changes. Those who have guns now - and want guns - will still have them, no matter the laws. Those who don't have them and wouldn't have them - well, nothing changes. The result will be a nation of law-abiding victims who must depend upon its government even more to protect them from the rest of the nation, who has remained armed. The sheep in the middle of these two armed camps will lose more and more every battle that occurs - lives and incomes to the one side, rights and privacies to the other.
Gun control is target aquisition and method of delivery. Every single person in America should be encouraged to develope, maintain, even further their skills. Hopefully, they will never be needed. But I'd rather hope that than hope for someone to get to me fast enough to save me. No matter what we may write, there are no super heroes.
A proactive people, prepared and capable of defending itself from national to individual level, results in a stronger nation. A reactive (which is the definition of police response and see how well that is doing) people who rely upon a government entity to keep them safe will suffer. Though they enmass are the backbone of that entity, individually they are insignificant to that entity.
Now I'm very late for a breakfast meeting. Gotta go.
J
~
Clash of Steel Magazine Fantasy Book Reviewer | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2176
| Posted 8/31/2006 11:30 AM (GMT -5) | | I read a book called Lil' Monster some years ago. It was about a 'famous' LA Crip who grew up as gang violence in LA morphed into the drug wars. It's fascinating reading and you could get it pretty cheap on Amazon used if anyone was so incline.
Anyway, it was a pretty interesting book and his narrative was peppered with all these color observations to give you a feel for life in South Central that weren't pertainent to his bio but were fascinating from an athropological viewpoint.
One of his little one-off stories was about Christmas 1989 in Compton. For Christmas the gang drove a pickup truck down the neighborhood and handed out AK-47s to anyone who wanted them. They gave away "crates" obtained from their south of the border raw product connections.
Britian tried banning handguns and their violence rate (by handgun use) has risen dramatically.
I respect your position Dave because a) I think you believe you are correct and b) you obviously care about people in a larger sense.
The only problem I have is this. If you make a moral decision for yourself to aschew a means of protection for yourself and/or family fine. But if you want to then impose that decision on myself then I start to feel uncomfortable. I have a gun now. I have it specifically for home protection though originally I purchased it for work.
3 guys break into my house (I live in Vegas one of the top cities for home invasions) and they have guns. If I have a gun can I defeat them? Not likely: but possible, ecspecially as I know my house layout and practice.
3 guys break into my house with baseball bats and knives so I grab that 7 Iron. What chance do I have? I would suggest none.
However, I think your point would be that I could use a shotgun as you don't want them restricted. Or one of Lil' Monster's AK-47 which came from outside of the country and our manufacturing system-- so really I guess I'm not that oppossed to your idea.
The only thing holding me back from jumping on board is that no one can agree with what the Amendment actually says and the failed program in England.
I literally just talked myself around to at least being open to what you're saying, lol.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jeff Stehman
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 1224
| Posted 8/31/2006 1:45 PM (GMT -5) | | Dave said...
Perhaps what I didn't express cleary was that it would be necessary to limit the production of guns. You do that by going after the manufacturers and the sellers. Guns are much more difficult to manufacture. If I really wanted, I could probably grown cocoa and manufacture cocaine. I doubt I could ever manufacture a handgun, though I suppose a flintlock might be possible.
One country cannot limit the global production of guns. Arms dealing is big business around the world, and you're not going to put an end to that. Which brings us back to the cocaine example. As long as the demand exists, the reason behind the demand doesn't matter. Ours is a violent society with a history of gun use. Prohibition won't change that. It'll just give rise to be larger criminal gun industry.
And while you may be able to manufacture cocaine on your own (I have a friend who used to make his own handguns), your ability to do so doesn't change the fact that most of it is still manufactured illegally in one country. Even if you could somehow severely curtail legal arms manufacturing around the world, that doesn't mean you'll limit arms manufacturing.
Dave said...
Limit manufacturing, stop the private sale of hand guns, roun dup the ones that are out there, and then start punishing.
Again, that sounds like the same plan used for cocaine.
--Jeff Stehman | | Back to Top | | |
|
von Darkmoor
Small Press Publisher (and Dancer still)
Date Joined Dec 2005
Total Posts : 3119
| Posted 8/31/2006 3:03 PM (GMT -5) | | Dave said...
Howard - I agree and disagree. Part and parcel of getting handguns off the street is limiting their manufacture. Then ban handguns altogether and levy and ENFORCE severe penalties for having one. That would get rid of them within 5 years.
You're argument is a circular defense that falls in on itself. I need a hand gun because the criminals have guns. Well hand guns aren't manufactured for criminals. They are manufactured for YOU and then criminals use them. So if they were no longer manufactured and easily available, then they wouldn't find their way into the hands of criminals. And for those criminals that still managed to get one, you punish them severely.
It's easy: stop making them (by that I mean limit production) and punish anyone who has one in their possession.
No one needs a gun. I want them; I like them; I have several and would like more. I believe I should be able to purchase one whenever I want to. I want my daughters to know and understand guns, to not be afraid of them, to be comfortable but not negligible with their use. I'm not going to argue 2nd Amendment definitions due to the fact that today's pundits have destroyed the sense of the Constitution by diluting the meaning of every word. Like statistics, anyone can find something to support their interpretation.
Banning something has never worked, has it? Black markets exist for every item banned - bans, black markets and the crimes created by them are insidiously entwined. The majority of today's common crimes are acts of opportunity (versus acts of planned consideration) - today's criminally minded don't think anymore. I'm not saying the old school of criminals was intelligent, but there is a distinct difference between yesterday's safe crackers and today's muggers. Anyway, acts of opportunity are perpetrated upon naive, innocent, easy targets. Confident, aware, capable people are not generally targets. Someone who knows how to handle themselves and portrays that confidence will never be chosen as a target of a crime of convenience when the option to prey upon the meek, the shy, the lonely, the shut-in is so readily available.
Empowering people with the ability to defend themselves leads, not to more violence, but to more capable, more fearless, more reasonable interaction. Nations have banned guns, have banned alcohol, have banned Jews - all to no avail. There's been shortages of food, of supplies, of Western products in Eastern countries; there's been forced rationing and requested rationing - and all those who want those things bad enough still get them. No matter the cost, the effort, the toll - people willing to do whatever it takes get what they want. Jeff's post about violence quite literally defines the root of the problem. Society dictates what will be important and American (and many others') society has determined that life is not. We're all for quality of life, philosophy of life -- in our lives. We have elitist attitudes when we try to equate and explain as the ultimate our understanding of what is so imporant to us, forgetting - or even ignoring - how we got those things.
Circular reasoning doesn't work when it comes to ethical choices. The members of mankind who espouse the lofty views of 'we all just need to get along' have always needed those few who are willing to get (and keep) their hands dirty to make sure we all do just get along. Water, tho the opposite of fire, doesn't always vanquish it under its own merits. That's why fire breaks are necessary. Same reason peace doesn't always win and remain dominant - unless the 'enlightened few' keep a few o' us warriors in cold storage, there will always be someone out there seeking to take advantage.
It's ridiculous to claim something is beneath us, or that we are so superiorly enlightened we don't need to do such and such or commit such acts. That's bullshit. Leaders can say crap like that because they aren't the ones suffering anything but public opinion ratings. Those non-involved can spout such nonsense because they, while they think they understand 'freedom' and 'equality' and 'love', can't grasp the suffering and pain and terror and sacrifice it takes to establish their freedom (they say 'right') to think such dreck. To use this current war as an example, we know our people are getting tortured; we know there is no adherence to the Geneva Conventions; we know this does not meet the historical definition of a war. Does our supposed superior level of civility save us from these atrocities? Nope. Not one iota. We face a mindset we cannot fathom because we cannot think that way. We don't truly understand them and they laugh at our attempts to influence them via methods we know we would be influenced by. We need to do, must do, whatever is necessary with overwhelming force and superiority in everything over and over again, harder and harder each time, until the point is made and taken home. Forcefully.
So, back to gun control: I am not arguing that I and you and everyone else should have a gun because criminals have them. I'm saying let me have a gun, have society (like the peer pressure of the old South, the Wild West, the hunters, the foragers, the survivors of any race in any era) demand I know how to use that gun, and let me maintain my own quality of life by not forcing me to remain weak, dependent upon a large government to protect me and mine. I'm saying let me be capable of dictating what happens to me, not the government, not my neighbor, not you. Don't buy a gun. I've no problem with that. Don't smoke or frequent places that allow smoking if you're so inclined. I'm fine with that. I don't smoke and I have no problem with those who do. I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can and cannot do on and in the property that they allow me to own and yet take my money from me in the form of taxes and fees and regulatory fines. We are still a democracy. I'm not fine with the scare tactics of mass media and government lackeys who terrorize the public with the constant concetration on homicides by guns and violence. Yes, they're horrific. But do you know what's worse? The number of people who die from drunk driving incidents. The number of people who die from doctor's malpractice. The number of deaths in both categories dwarfs those caused by guns. Where is the outcry here? Where is the furor over medical negligence? These aren't belabored in the public mindset. These have been buried beneath the money of brewers and HMOs and pharmecuticals. Whose money speaks loudest: that of big business and governments or that of you and I? We've been bamboozled by the media for so long we no longer concentrate on what's really killing us.
Money is the root to eveything. Follow the money, squeeze the source and problems are usually solved. That's why bans won't work and that's why good people refusing to do what is necessary to keep people good is an atrocity. Yet most of us fail to see that because we've been programmed to think something else is the larger problem.
The laws on the books are sufficient if enforced. Actually, they need to be changed to benefit the victims more than the state, but the penalties currently written need to be utilized to their fullest extent. We need to stop pandering to wishy-washy, namsy-pamsy 'mindset' worries and determine one thing: Did so-and-so commit this or not. Then let the preponderance of the evidence carry the day. said...
And for those criminals that still managed to get one, you punish them severely.
And, Dave, once we finally legalize drugs and run it as the national business it should be, things will become less violent. It won't be a magical balm solving all violent crimes but it will reduce such crimes. How do I know? Because it will be all about the money then. The government will protect its interests and come down hard on anyone else selling it on the side. No more gun battles or gang wars on distribution or territory. No more crack houses, etc etc. It will just be a matter of going to your local liquer store or corner cigarette depot and having the money to buy a joint or a hit or a dime bag or a . . . you get the point. Of course, there'll be those muggings and robberies still when one person wants what someone else has.
I see some more posts have arrived while I've been writing my thesis here. I apologize this is so long and I've wasted most of an afternoon that was planned for short stories for Ralan's and Carnifex. But, I'm to blame since I started this all as a joke. That's why I stay out of this forum. I've appreciated that you've gone to the effort to provide this thread and keep topics such as this out of why we're all really here. I've said my piece, now I'm going back to the important side of SFReader 
J
~
Clash of Steel Magazine Fantasy Book Reviewer | | Back to Top | | |
| | |