|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
This is so easy. If a criminal is able to have such a weapon (whether legal or not), then I am very comfortable with the vast majority of law abiding people having concealed guns. This is by the far the most effective way to deal with such lunatics. |
So you really have no problem with the fact that someone who's been acting mentally unstable for years can so easily walk into a shop and legally buy a semi-automatic weapon? Would you prefer if there were no background checks at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that this man shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, but I am not sure how one could legislate a solution to this situation without it making it more difficult for someone like me, who wants to buy a firearm for legitimate purposes.
As for Mexico, I have a question for the board. I have been looking up pics of the gun siezures on google and youtube, and for the life of me I don't understand how they would get those guns at a gun show. Granted I saw a fair amount of remington 870's and M1A1 carbines, but what about P90's Barretts, SAWs, and all sorts of grenades? In one I video I saw a cache of grenades with ATF stamped on the sides. I am not saying that private buyers are not selling to the Mexican mafia, but that they have a whole lot of military grade stuff that I never saw in Virginia or NC. I reckon this stuff is coming from gov sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| As for Mexico, I have a question for the board. I have been looking up pics of the gun siezures on google and youtube, and for the life of me I don't understand how they would get those guns at a gun show. Granted I saw a fair amount of remington 870's and M1A1 carbines, but what about P90's Barretts, SAWs, and all sorts of grenades? In one I video I saw a cache of grenades with ATF stamped on the sides. I am not saying that private buyers are not selling to the Mexican mafia, but that they have a whole lot of military grade stuff that I never saw in Virginia or NC. I reckon this stuff is coming from gov sources. |
Well, for one, one of the Mexican paramilitary groups splintered from the army or national police (don't remember) and took a lot of their equipment with them, including helicopters, etc. Any US equipment they have might have essentially been grandfathered in.
They also get a ton of equipment from South and Central America, as I said in a previous post, much of which was granted by the United States to groups attempting to combat leftist governments and insurgencies in the '80s. Some of their more impressive armaments result from those exchanges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A good explanation. I just hope they don't have sources from within the military equiping them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
This is so easy. If a criminal is able to have such a weapon (whether legal or not), then I am very comfortable with the vast majority of law abiding people having concealed guns. This is by the far the most effective way to deal with such lunatics. |
So you really have no problem with the fact that someone who's been acting mentally unstable for years can so easily walk into a shop and legally buy a semi-automatic weapon? Would you prefer if there were no background checks at all? |
I didn't say "no background checks at all". If somebody is a convicted violent criminal, then that could be obvious grounds for restriction. That point is debatable. However, restricting the rest of society just to supposedly prevent a few nut-job from getting a gun is absurd. Criminals will always be able to get guns if they really want them. In no country will you find it to be otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| Criminals will always be able to get guns if they really want them. In no country will you find it to be otherwise. |
"Criminal" is an extremely broad term. In the States, any idiot who feels like holding up a convenience store or mugging folks on the street will have a gun. Does that happen here? No. Do you think that ease of acquisition has nothing to do with that? For sure, mafia members in Korea have it within their powers to acquire weapons, but low-level criminals don't have access to guns here. Part of easy access to guns is having tons of people who own them. At home, if I didn't have guns already, I could ask anyone I know and, for enough money, could probably buy them. If you talk to Koreans, they usually don't know anyone who even owns a gun. Some criminals will always have guns, but that doesn't mean you will always have the US situation wherein all criminals have guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Northway, do you have any ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting guns without impinging on a law abiding citizens ability to purchase a gun?
I can't see myself ever buying the gun control argument. I do agree that the current situation is absurd (my neighbour fires his barret in his backyard, it sounds like a bomb) but looking at England, Australia et al tells me that proponents will not be happy till I lose my marlin .30-.30 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Criminals will always be able to get guns if they really want them. In no country will you find it to be otherwise. |
"Criminal" is an extremely broad term. In the States, any idiot who feels like holding up a convenience store or mugging folks on the street will have a gun. Does that happen here? No. Do you think that ease of acquisition has nothing to do with that? For sure, mafia members in Korea have it within their powers to acquire weapons, but low-level criminals don't have access to guns here. Part of easy access to guns is having tons of people who own them. At home, if I didn't have guns already, I could ask anyone I know and, for enough money, could probably buy them. If you talk to Koreans, they usually don't know anyone who even owns a gun. Some criminals will always have guns, but that doesn't mean you will always have the US situation wherein all criminals have guns. |
In the first place, I don't know how easy it is to buy a gun illegally in Korea (never tried). I'm not prepared to accept your assumption that it's very difficult without looking into it further though...
More than that, the point of having a gun is to defend yourself. Not just from criminals with guns, but also from those armed with any other weapon (such as a knife). Criminals don't need guns to break into your home or try to rape you (if you are a woman) etc. etc. But the only way for a law abiding citizen to properly defend himself/herself properly is with a gun. The same applies in a country like SK or Japan, it just so happens that they have a lower crime rate and much less of a drug problem (lucky them)...
The other obvious point is that a disarmed public is defenseless against a tyrannical government. I know that point doesn't bother many of the boot licking, gov't loving socialist types on here, but it has to bother anyone who genuinely cares about liberty. Disarming the public and then building up a police state in the name of "protecting" us is no solution at all.
Last edited by visitorq on Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
Northway, do you have any ideas on how to prevent criminals from getting guns without impinging on a law abiding citizens ability to purchase a gun?
I can't see myself ever buying the gun control argument. I do agree that the current situation is absurd (my neighbour fires his barret in his backyard, it sounds like a bomb) but looking at England, Australia et al tells me that proponents will not be happy till I lose my marlin .30-.30 |
What precisely is your objection to the Australian model of gun control? From my limited understanding of Australian gun law (and if I am misinterpreting them, someone please correct me), they seem to strike a nice balance between accessibility and forcing people to demonstrate their responsibility. Anyone with a serious interest in firearms and cause to own them still has access. Whether you're a collector, a hunter, or simply enjoy target practice, you've got a valid path to ownership of the type of gun required to fill your needs. What you can't do is purchase a gun "just because," and you're expected to meet certain storage requirements to minimize both the possibility of theft and the possibility of misuse by others. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
The most popular deer rifle in America would be category C (edited, actually I mispoke, it's B maybe.) Guess it depends on how difficult it would be get a B license. It sounds more restrictive than I would support but If that was the FINAL restriction on firearms, and B's were relatively easy to get I would be pretty contented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_336
The 1894 is pretty much the same classification.
hunting rifles for decent sized game tend to use high grain centerfire cartridges.
Then again, I have no idea what they hunt in Australia... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| What precisely is your objection to the Australian model of gun control? |
I can't answer for him, but my objection is the citizenry's inability to carry for self-defense.
Though I must say I am impressed by their forcing handgun owners to attend a certain number of training sessions per year to maintain their licenses. That seems more than reasonable. I've been out of the US for four years, have only been to the range a handful of times over those same years, and was recently able to renew my carry permit through the mail. I trust myself, but that is far too lax for the majority of people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wesharris
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
The most popular deer rifle in America would be category C (edited, actually I mispoke, it's B maybe.) Guess it depends on how difficult it would be get a B license. It sounds more restrictive than I would support but If that was the FINAL restriction on firearms, and B's were relatively easy to get I would be pretty contented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlin_Model_336
The 1894 is pretty much the same classification.
hunting rifles for decent sized game tend to use high grain centerfire cartridges.
Then again, I have no idea what they hunt in Australia... |
It doesn't stop.
There should be no restrictions, such as those listed. A genuine need? That's the 2nd amendment. Honestly folks, just because a single nut job with a pistol, offs several people, that doesn't mean that we need to limit the freedoms of others.
What's the saying? He who desires security over freedom, deserves to be insecure and lose his freedom? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wesharris wrote: |
What's the saying? He who desires security over freedom, deserves to be insecure and lose his freedom? |
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
Yes, a quote I agree with. I just wonder where the freedom loving gun rights advocates were when the Bush administration was gutting the constitution of other essential liberties under the cover of "homeland security".
Anyway, I am kind of tiring of this debate for 2 reasons:
No one on this thread is really going to change anybody's mind. Everyone(including me) is throwing around facts, statistics, and comparisons, but we all just interpret them the way we want to.
Secondly, I just watched, in its entirety, the President's Tuscon Memorial Service speech, and was actually kind of inspired by it. The holder of the top political office in the world cast no blame on anyone. On the contrary, he called for unity.
So in a way, Obama did gain politically from this tragedy, because he came out looking very "presidential". Even conservatives are giving his speech high marks. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, came off looking petty and small, sending in her selfish remarks on video, ala Osama bin Laden. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sector7G
Joined: 24 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I can't resist one last comment that the Benjamin Franklin quote reminded me of.
When the founders were drafting the constitution, it was a much different time. When they inserted "the right to bear arms", I doubt very seriously they envisioned weapons like glock handguns and AK47 assault rifles. They were thinking about muskets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
@ sector7 I agree, Obama's speech was quite inspiring. First time I have liked him in months. I also agree that the repubs ran roughshod on rights during their tenure. I notice Obama has actually been worse though.
The founders intended to have a militia style army rather than a prof one. They would have loved the AK. Many colonists used the brown bess, which was the AK of it's day.
Last after noting the conciliatory nature of Obama's speech, you then go on to criticize Palin. Truthfully, she did seem small today, but harping on her continually will just serve to undermine the tone Obama tried to set. Which will play into republican hands. Seems pretty self-defeating to me.
This whole thing has reminded me to resist passing judgement till I have some idea of what is going on, and further reinforced the negative role the media plays. Beck et all, have always been a waste of time, but I have the mainstream media's continual meltdown to be just as toxic. This is not even what sells. I think it is some sort of a group neurosis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
