Technology1 min ago
Nebraska
Guns don't kill people -Sharpened sticks do !!
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A bid to be famous, apparently.
Sharpened sticks are an old and inefficient weapon. You have to get in close proximity to your victim which means they could overpower you. It also takes longer to kill the same amount of people with a sharpened stick. Guns are more efficient and have the advantage of being able to be a good distance from your intended victim
It is hard to ban sharpened sticks, but effective licensing of guns is easier. Obviously, the licensing isn't good enough in the US or these incidents wouldn't crop up so regularly. Because there are so many guns in America, it is difficult to effectively control it. Until there is political will to dis-arm its population, occurrences such as this, will continue to happen.
Sharpened sticks are an old and inefficient weapon. You have to get in close proximity to your victim which means they could overpower you. It also takes longer to kill the same amount of people with a sharpened stick. Guns are more efficient and have the advantage of being able to be a good distance from your intended victim
It is hard to ban sharpened sticks, but effective licensing of guns is easier. Obviously, the licensing isn't good enough in the US or these incidents wouldn't crop up so regularly. Because there are so many guns in America, it is difficult to effectively control it. Until there is political will to dis-arm its population, occurrences such as this, will continue to happen.
I think, by your reasoning Gromit, then only the government and the bad guys would have arms... that's scary.
Realistically, your proposal will never happeen here in the U.S., but interestingly, just such a case will be heard by our Supreme Court during this session. All comes down to the interpretation of a "well regulated Militia..." in the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
I realize that the European communities and many of those in the U.K. disagree with our right to own firearms, but our distinctive and historical mistrust of government (derived, I might say from the era of King George) has always supported such a right.
More to the point, almost always, in cases such as yesterday's murderous rage in Omaha, Nebraska (to which I believe you are referring) it's the criminal's use of already outlawed fire arms (in this case an SKS-style assault rifle) that raises the question of better enforcement of gun laws already in place. Ownership of the assault rifle reportedly used by the 19 year old has been against the law for a number of years... at least 1989...
Additionally, the "licensing" of guns is also fraught with suspicion since that provides the government with data bases that are seen as dangerous in the wrong administration's hands... Paranoid to say the least, but, unfortunately, sometimes 'they' are out to get you, as history has aptly shown.
Realistically, your proposal will never happeen here in the U.S., but interestingly, just such a case will be heard by our Supreme Court during this session. All comes down to the interpretation of a "well regulated Militia..." in the Second Amendment of our Constitution.
I realize that the European communities and many of those in the U.K. disagree with our right to own firearms, but our distinctive and historical mistrust of government (derived, I might say from the era of King George) has always supported such a right.
More to the point, almost always, in cases such as yesterday's murderous rage in Omaha, Nebraska (to which I believe you are referring) it's the criminal's use of already outlawed fire arms (in this case an SKS-style assault rifle) that raises the question of better enforcement of gun laws already in place. Ownership of the assault rifle reportedly used by the 19 year old has been against the law for a number of years... at least 1989...
Additionally, the "licensing" of guns is also fraught with suspicion since that provides the government with data bases that are seen as dangerous in the wrong administration's hands... Paranoid to say the least, but, unfortunately, sometimes 'they' are out to get you, as history has aptly shown.
I had hoped this wouldn't turn into a U.S. against the rest of the world thread, Gromit... but there are a number of valid reasons that the terms Old World/New World apply so well for the differences between Europe/U.K. and the U.S.
All one has to do is look to history, such as this headline from the New York Times, dated Nov. 8, 1938, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment. (Read death).
If you are a student of history, you'll soon realize the significance of the following day... November 9, 1938... Krystal Nacht: On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The F�hrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.
Contd.
All one has to do is look to history, such as this headline from the New York Times, dated Nov. 8, 1938, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:
The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been "disarmed" with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment. (Read death).
If you are a student of history, you'll soon realize the significance of the following day... November 9, 1938... Krystal Nacht: On the evening of Nov. 9, Adolf Hitler, Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels, and other Nazi chiefs planned the attack. Orders went out to Nazi security forces: "All Jewish stores are to be destroyed immediately . . . . Jewish synagogues are to be set on fire . . . . The F�hrer wishes that the police does not intervene. . . . All Jews are to be disarmed. In the event of resistance they are to be shot immediately."
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.
Contd.
Contd.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
More recently; It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
headed by this list of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent!
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. (Source: International Herald Tribune)
If you are a gun owner and are comfortable with being on a list maintained by your government, great! Good for you.... but no thanks...
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
More recently; It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
headed by this list of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent!
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. (Source: International Herald Tribune)
If you are a gun owner and are comfortable with being on a list maintained by your government, great! Good for you.... but no thanks...
OK sharpened sticks can kill people.Remember the indigonous people of the USA, who had to live by them.
Then along came the white man with another type of weapon which eventually wiped the American Indians out,with the help of Custer ( 19th C Hitler) who eventually, got his deserved comupance
.The problematic attitude with the arrogant US of A is WE can do what we LIKE, but the rest of the world must do what WE WANT.
On the issue of WMDs which is the only country to have used them (TWICE)
You Yanks still have the John Wayne film mentality, try adopting his real life mentality.
Then along came the white man with another type of weapon which eventually wiped the American Indians out,with the help of Custer ( 19th C Hitler) who eventually, got his deserved comupance
.The problematic attitude with the arrogant US of A is WE can do what we LIKE, but the rest of the world must do what WE WANT.
On the issue of WMDs which is the only country to have used them (TWICE)
You Yanks still have the John Wayne film mentality, try adopting his real life mentality.
This article is very informative, if you'll take the time to read it: http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html .
If my history is correct, among the first Europeans to come into conflict with the natives of the North American continent, were the English. One of their most effective ways of killing the indigenous peoples was the use of trading blankets infected with small pox virus, to which the natives had no protection... In a letter dated in 1763 to the English Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them". But in fairness, that was a far different time.
I'm sure fletcher.5, we Yanks will try to remember that the next time you've a bad day at Dunkirk...
Oh, by the way, didn't ya'll use poison gasses in WW I? The French in June 1918, and the British in September same year? The Germans introduced it at the Battle of Ypre's in 1915, I believe... So much for the first to use WMD, no? Or was that different, somehow, than Saddam Hussein's use on his own people?
How many U.K. soldiers would have been among the one million anticipated casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland?
finally, why does a simple explanation of differences between the U.S. and the rest of the world always come down to this kind of an exchange? Oh, well...
If my history is correct, among the first Europeans to come into conflict with the natives of the North American continent, were the English. One of their most effective ways of killing the indigenous peoples was the use of trading blankets infected with small pox virus, to which the natives had no protection... In a letter dated in 1763 to the English Colonel Bouquet, Lord Amherst wrote, "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them". But in fairness, that was a far different time.
I'm sure fletcher.5, we Yanks will try to remember that the next time you've a bad day at Dunkirk...
Oh, by the way, didn't ya'll use poison gasses in WW I? The French in June 1918, and the British in September same year? The Germans introduced it at the Battle of Ypre's in 1915, I believe... So much for the first to use WMD, no? Or was that different, somehow, than Saddam Hussein's use on his own people?
How many U.K. soldiers would have been among the one million anticipated casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland?
finally, why does a simple explanation of differences between the U.S. and the rest of the world always come down to this kind of an exchange? Oh, well...
In responce to CLANAD. Your resource gives a typical American biased point of view with no substance whatsoever. I must admit you Americans are brilliant at re-inventing English history.
There is a major difference between an unknown epidemic & ethnic cleansing.
On your point of how many UK troops MIGHT have died on a SUPPOSSED invasion of Japan? none did, but thousands of innocent Japanese people DID. So do yourself a favour, do not attempt to justify another one of your countries shamefull actions. Because your arrogance is the reason why your country is hated.
There is a major difference between an unknown epidemic & ethnic cleansing.
On your point of how many UK troops MIGHT have died on a SUPPOSSED invasion of Japan? none did, but thousands of innocent Japanese people DID. So do yourself a favour, do not attempt to justify another one of your countries shamefull actions. Because your arrogance is the reason why your country is hated.
Valid examples of America's 'arrogance' would go a great deal farther in advancing your argument fletcher.5, rahter than the usual baseless charges thrown against the kitchen wall to see what sitcks.
Their are several historical examples of smallpox ridden blankets actually being provided to the native populations here in North America by the English, not just talking aobut it. To be fair, the same activitiy in an attempt at genocide was accomplished by the later generations of what, by that time, had become 'Americans'. Both equally as disgusting... but the first to think of it and practise it were the English and French.
I think it was President Roosevelt that said something to the idea of "... we ask but enough territory in foreign lands in which to bury our dead..."
How would one today, respond to the U.S.'s alternate action of having the A-Bomb in WW II and not using it and the Allies (including the U.K.) actually suffering at least one million casualties and the War extended another 5 years and the Japanese suffering an estimated 2 million additional casualties, many women and children? What decision would you have made if you were Truman?
The testimony to America's "shameful" actions lies in the inumerable graves, row on row of white crosses on foreign soil, none of which ever became U.S. colonies...
Their are several historical examples of smallpox ridden blankets actually being provided to the native populations here in North America by the English, not just talking aobut it. To be fair, the same activitiy in an attempt at genocide was accomplished by the later generations of what, by that time, had become 'Americans'. Both equally as disgusting... but the first to think of it and practise it were the English and French.
I think it was President Roosevelt that said something to the idea of "... we ask but enough territory in foreign lands in which to bury our dead..."
How would one today, respond to the U.S.'s alternate action of having the A-Bomb in WW II and not using it and the Allies (including the U.K.) actually suffering at least one million casualties and the War extended another 5 years and the Japanese suffering an estimated 2 million additional casualties, many women and children? What decision would you have made if you were Truman?
The testimony to America's "shameful" actions lies in the inumerable graves, row on row of white crosses on foreign soil, none of which ever became U.S. colonies...
1 to 13 of 13
