Singapore Expats Forum

They have done it again! 8 more people shot dead in the US

Discuss about the latest news & interesting topics, real life experience or other out of topic discussions with locals & expatriates in Singapore.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 10 Dec 2007 6:02 pm

rt160177 wrote:
My mistake, I forgot hand guns were banned after Dunblane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom


Interesting article I must say. It seems the UK as had it's share of "Massacres" as well. Even more interesting is not the 1.7 vrs 6.9 deaths / 100,000 between the UK & US, but more telling is the fact that injuries of all types (minor~death) has increased by 110% in 4 years since stricter gun controls were implemented in the UK.

Thanks for the link as I also didn't realize that we actually got our "right to bear arms" from the English originally.

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Mon, 10 Dec 2007 7:41 pm

ksl wrote:Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela are examples of what can happen


And how much more successful might have been the overthrow of the Myanmar dictatorship if those protesting could shoot back?

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Mon, 10 Dec 2007 9:19 pm

Strong Eagle wrote:
ksl wrote:Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela are examples of what can happen


And how much more successful might have been the overthrow of the Myanmar dictatorship if those protesting could shoot back?


And how much more bloody will every coup henceforth be? If the opposition rises to power by the sword (gun), haven't they given permission to every dissenting group in future to do the same to them?

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 10 Dec 2007 9:39 pm

How did the "Military" take control in the first place! Military means guns. So now the country is in ruins after 45 years of not having guns to be able to stop the Military Madness that is Myanmar. How much more innocent unarmed blood must be spilled? Had they had guns they may well not be in the poverty that they are in now. By the same token though, they might still be just a bunch of warlords always at each others throats. (But at least they were able to defend themselves! :o ) That's what our "right to bear arms" gives us. The ability to prevent something like that ever happening to us.

Thanks for the prime example WIMH. :wink:

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:03 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:Thanks for the prime example WIMH. :wink:


Only the best for you, SMS. :)

Except that SE was the one who brought up Myanmar, much as I would like to take the credit. :wink:

I think we will just have to differ on this, at least in theory on my part. I cannot bring myself to condone violence, even as a means to an ends. Maybe one day I will change my mind. Maybe when my family's lives are under threat I would fire a gun if one were in my hands. I don't know because I have never been tested.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:20 pm

"I don't know because I have never been tested."

And hopefully you never will. I wish nobody had to be tested but until that day arrives...............

sprite
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed, 08 Aug 2007

Postby sprite » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 8:32 am

Having school age relatives that lived through the tragedy at Columbine, I can tell you that I will never consider 'the right to bear arms' and success story in the US. Why don't we give SMS real arms, like a nuclear bomb to take care of those pesky vermin? Sound ridiculous? Yes, and so do Americans to most other countries while they run on and on about their right to have a gun and the reckless manner in which they seem to use them.

Oh yes, one more thing. I was 'tested'. A burgular/rapist broke into the house when I was 20 or 21, I defended myself without a gun.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 9:14 am

sprite wrote:Oh yes, one more thing. I was 'tested'. A burgular/rapist broke into the house when I was 20 or 21, I defended myself without a gun.




Good for you! Not all can defend themselves against an armed intruder. (or wasn't he armed) Nor should they have to. At least as long as there are criminal elements (and there will be until we stop putting criminals back on the streets for technicalities - but that's a different issue though related) with access to illegal weapons, the right to bear arms at least gives the option to defend oneself against armed intruders. Without that, what do you propose? Kevlar body armour? It's not funny I agree and I honestly understand you concern.

But having been around for a few years myself and seen what can happen in a different set of circumstances (as I pointed out earlier - I shot and killed a man in 1968 in self defense) I was held up at gun-point by a drugged up gang of men from Washington DC. Without my having that gun beneath my hotel reception counter I would not be here to write this. So you see, our thought's or fears stem from our backgrounds and environments and events. You have your right to yours and I have my right to mine. (Interesting enough, I went back to that hotel about 3 years ago (It was a Holiday Inn when I worked there) and the holes are still in the wooden pillar separating the windows in the reception lobby after all these years. (my home town)

Oh, nobody is claiming that 'the right to bear arms' is a success story. It's one of the cornerstones of the foundations of our country. Sorry, but I paid my dues (vietnam) and my taxes and it's my country and I still want the ability to defend what's mine. It's why after all these years we are still a democracy and not a dictatorship (at least theoretically anyway - again another discussion). There is a lot wrong with our country I admit. The availability of illegal weapons and ease of obtaining guns I have noted in earlier posts is. Putting criminals back on the streets is. Dumbing down our schools is. But gun ownership by responsible citizens is not one of them.

local lad
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue, 13 Sep 2005

Postby local lad » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 9:47 am

I wonder when will the right of owing arms by civilians be abolished. Why do we get to read shooting cases in the States more than the rest of the countries?

It's sad it happened on Christmas season.

User avatar
Strong Eagle
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 11108
Joined: Sat, 10 Jul 2004
Location: Off The Red Dot
Contact:

Postby Strong Eagle » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:39 am

local lad wrote:I wonder when will the right of owing arms by civilians be abolished. Why do we get to read shooting cases in the States more than the rest of the countries?

It's sad it happened on Christmas season.


I for one shall always fight any attempt to ban ownership of weapons by civilians. Every person must have the fundamental right of self defense or any other rights become meaningless. If sticks are the only weapons then all that is needed for self defense is sticks. But when criminals, tyrants, and dictators have guns, then a gun is required for self defense.

So, as soon as you figure out how to get the criminal element to give up their guns I shall be more than happy to give up mine. In the meanwhile I have no intention of creating an uneven playing field with me at the disadvantage.

PS: Although you do hear about gun killings, what you don't hear about is the number of crimes prevented because a gun owner stopped the perpetrator.

sprite
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed, 08 Aug 2007

Postby sprite » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:06 am

I don't think anyone is arguing that Strong Eagle, or maybe just local lad is. I'm certainly not for banning outright but I think stricter laws, more stringent screening policies, the enforcement of the current laws, the ban of assault weapons (grenade launchers and other weapons meant to kill dozens of people in an instant) can still protect the citizens and the Constitution.

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:00 pm

sprite wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that Strong Eagle, or maybe just local lad is. I'm certainly not for banning outright but I think stricter laws, more stringent screening policies, the enforcement of the current laws, the ban of assault weapons (grenade launchers and other weapons meant to kill dozens of people in an instant) can still protect the citizens and the Constitution.


Then what are we discussing? You have just said exactly the same thing I said earlier? :?

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35159
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 12:02 pm

local lad wrote:I wonder when will the right of owing arms by civilians be abolished. Why do we get to read shooting cases in the States more than the rest of the countries?

It's sad it happened on Christmas season.


Could it be that your press and lots of other countries presses are muzzled? #-o

sprite
Chatter
Chatter
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed, 08 Aug 2007

Postby sprite » Tue, 11 Dec 2007 4:40 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
sprite wrote:I don't think anyone is arguing that Strong Eagle, or maybe just local lad is. I'm certainly not for banning outright but I think stricter laws, more stringent screening policies, the enforcement of the current laws, the ban of assault weapons (grenade launchers and other weapons meant to kill dozens of people in an instant) can still protect the citizens and the Constitution.


Then what are we discussing? You have just said exactly the same thing I said earlier? :?


All I know is I never said I condoned the banning guns in the US. There should be better control of what's legal and to whom they are available. For instance, the Menendez brothers should never have been able to walk into a sports store at -- what were they 16? 17? and buy rifles to shoot their parents with.

User avatar
Wind In My Hair
Manager
Manager
Posts: 2306
Joined: Tue, 19 Jul 2005

Postby Wind In My Hair » Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:45 am

sprite wrote:the Menendez brothers should never have been able to walk into a sports store at -- what were they 16? 17? and buy rifles to shoot their parents with.

This is scary. Yet again I find myself agreeing with sprite.


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests