Korean Job Discussion Forums

[thepeel]

[khyber]

[thepeel]

[mack4289]

I posted this somewhere else first but it's relevant here. I added more than was in the original.

Easy access to guns definitely deserves some of the blame. Granted, you don't need guns to massacre people (you can always use sarin gas, car bombs, airplanes, etc) but it does make it a lot easier. No matter where you stand on gun control, you have to admit it seems odd that the USA can have as many dramatic, international headline shootings as we do and still gun control is a complete non-starter politically. That's probably because the gun rights lobby is so much stronger than the gun control lobby. Of course you could say that the strength of those lobbies are just a reflection of the popularity of their positions among the American public, but I'd guess the majority of Americans would support background checks as a requirement for all gun purchases, the ban of assault weapons, preserving records of gun purchases for more than 24 hours in case they need to be used in a criminal investigation and not allowing people on the terrorist watchlist to purchase firearms. The NRA has successfully opposed all these measures to some extent (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/08/terror/main678811.shtml, http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070218/LOCAL190110/702180421/-1/ZONES04, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19109-2004Sep13.html). The problem is, as EJ Dionne puts it, "while the minority that opposes gun control casts single-minded votes on the issue, the majority that supports rational weapons regulation seems far less motivated. This has led to a new mythology, brilliantly stoked by the NRA: Supporting any gun regulation is fatal to an ambitious politician." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19109-2004Sep13.html). Here's more details about how mistmatched the lobbying efforts are when it comes to gun control.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/

"If lawmakers are guilty of tiptoeing around gun control issues, it is because the NRA and other gun rights groups wield an enormous amount of influence in Washington. The source of that influence is money. Gun rights groups have given more than $17 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989. Nearly $15 million, or 85 percent of the total, has gone to Republicans. The National Rifle Association is by far the gun rights lobby's biggest donor, having contributed more than $14 million over the past 15 years. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, contribute far less money than their rivals -- a total of nearly $1.7 million since 1989, of which 94 percent went to Democrats. The leading contributor among gun control advocates is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, which has given $1.5 million over the past 15 years.
If gun rights groups have a substantial advantage in campaign contributions, they dominate gun control advocates in the area of lobbying. The NRA alone spent nearly $11 million lobbying elected and government officials from 1997 to 2003. But it wasn't the gun rights lobby's biggest spender. That was Gun Owners of America, which spent more than $18 million on lobbing over the same period. By contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence spent under $2 million on lobbying from 1997 to 2003, and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spent $580,000.

The National Rifle Association has an additional advantage over all other groups in the debate. As a membership organization, the NRA can spend unlimited funds on communications to its 4 million members that identify pro-gun candidates. Those members also contribute millions of dollars in limited donations to the NRA's political action committee, which runs ads aimed at the general public that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Since 1989, the NRA has spent more than $22 million on communications costs and independent expenditures, with more than $18 million spent in support of Republican candidates."

[yoda]

[ontheway]

The loner from Virginia and the petty criminals would still get guns, even if they were banned completely.

Where do you think guns come from? They are made by people. Simple, ordinary, average people. You can make one in your basement or garage with a few simple materials and tools. They've been around for hundreds of years.

The criminals and wackos can ALWAYS get a gun. Illegal guns are available everywhere and you can get one in a couple of hours in any city and most any town. If they were banned from legal manufacture completely, the price would be higher, the guns would be homemade, but they would still be available. Only the innocent citizens would be disarmed.

Furthermore, comparative studies that take into account the cultural predispostion of the population in question show that a society is safer and crime is lower when guns are freely available and widely dispersed throughout the population.

Finally, it is a fact that DRUG PROHIBITION, is the primary cause of the majority of murders in the US. More murders are a result of other victimless crime laws such as prostitution and gambling. Making America free by repealing these bad laws would reduce all crime and especially murder. Making guns illegal would only create one more victimless crime: the manufacture, distribution and sale of firearms would be an illegal business. The murder rate in the US would INCREASE as a result.

[ontheway]

to clarify for the posters above:

"Entitlements" are payments from the government that one is "entitled" to receive if he or she qualifies under the law.

"A sense of entitlement" is a belief that the government or some other individual or group owes you something just because you exist.

"An individualist" is a person who believes he can stand on his own with no help from anyone. He not only does NOT believe that he is "entitled" to anything from anyone, but he will refuse to accept it. An individualist will refuse welfare even if he is starving. An individualist will refuse to take money from the socialist security welfare scheme because it is a socialistic entitlement and it's very existence is an abomination to the very soul of the individualist.

[mack4289]

[n3ptne]

[n3ptne]

[Poemer]

Please see this post if you guys are serious about getting guns off the streets:

http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=84939

Please post commentary on the other thread and not here.

[ChimpumCallao]

Ahem...

[stevemcgarrett]

Poemer wrote:

[thepeel]

[Thunndarr]