6 hours in and good so far. Also, I really support Vangor’s idea to pull this discussion out of the other thread.
I’ve been tempted to join in but have so far managed to restrain myself…
4 Likes
What I can’t understand is: are civilians ready to kill someone and live with it for their entire life?
Can you elaborate please?
I mean it’s the job of militaries to kill other human beings. And I’m only a civilian so I cannot imagine taking someone else’s life…
Well… I can understand that but for me if an invading army were marching up my street i am going to defend myself
I don’t agree with Vangor on many topics but this one I agree whole heartedly. Don’t let it go to your head though.
1 Like
Heh as if i would… Get over yourself brudda
1 Like
Yeah there is clearly a huge culture difference between us.
It’s the job of an army to defend civilians. Not mine. Like it’s the postman who delivers mails. Not me.
So now if the invade army crush our army, I don’t see how I can “save the country” by myself.
So in short, it’s not my role in society to die for my country.
And as said, killing an human being is difficult emotionally speaking and you have to live with it for your remaining days. I guess that militaries are prepared to that. But civilians shouldn’t…
The USA was never established to have a standing army, and as per its culture and heritage there is a very large percentage of the population that still understands its civic responsibility.
Drunks with cars kill far more people than crazy people with guns in the US.
2 Likes
Tell that to the gigantic standing military we have had for the last 200+ years…our civic duty is to register with our government so we can be called on to defend if needed. Not be our own walking arsenals. Because you know we’re constantly under the threat of being invaded so we must always be vigilant and ready to pull out the big guns at a moment’s notice…
1 Like
Removing the common citizen’s access to certain weapons is not going to keep them out of the hands of people who do things like this.
I’m not taking sides on whether non-military should have access or not. I just wanted to state the above.
2 Likes
Registering with selective service is the law and stands independent of the militia laws and references in a legal sense. And well yeah we have a bloated overreaching military in respects to membership, budget, and deployment. That is not from a historical perspective what was meant to be and that can be said about a great many roles the USA has changes course on domestically and internationally. Ideology changes, interpretation of laws have changed, in 200 years the very meaning of words used commonly at that time versus today have changed.
I often ignore these mass shooting debates since they are usually filled with the same gun control versus mental illness statements. Generally, the conversation never seems to get anywhere because of misconceptions about mental illness and its connection to violence. Then, there is the gross oversimplification of the complex problem of gun violence/gun culture in America.
Frankly, I’m a sufferer of a mental illness. So, I’m acutely aware of the negative stigma, stereotypes and misinformation associated with it. Statistically, we are 65 - 130% more likely to be victims of violence than people without mental illness. In aggregate, we are no more likely to commit a violent act than the general public.
Despite news programs always bringing up the “mentally ill loner” canard when these tragedies happen, studies have shown that around 60% of mass murders have been “allegedly” mentally ill (diagnosed and undiagnosed). So, what about that other 40% that aren’t mentally ill? Why doesn’t anyone ever want to talk about that elephant in the room?
8 Likes
That is an excellent point! I would gladly discuss that.
1 Like
So historically speaking slavery should still thrive, women shouldn’t be able to vote and homosexuality should still be considered an illness needing to be cured? Or perhaps like these things, militia laws are outdated & obsolete? I’m pretty sure our founding fathers never foresaw the destructive power firearms would evolve into, like so many other things in society today. There are thousands of obsolete laws on local, state & the federal books that served a purpose once and just have no relevance today.
You’re right that those determined enough to get their hands on them will find a way. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put barriers in their way. If even 1 tragedy is avoided because someone couldn’t get around those barriers, or because they were turned in by a neighbor for having illegal weapons, or if a 50 person massacre is downgraded to a 5 person shooting because all they could get were regular weapons easily, I consider that a step in the right direction and every one of those lives saved is well worth someone not having the right to own a firearm more powerful than they feasibly need.
1 Like
Did I say that, no…actually I haven’t expressed a view yet you seem determined to want to pick at my statements. My original point was from an idiomorphic perspective to help someone further their understanding of that culture aspect.
1 Like
I’m not trying to pick at your statements per say, at least not in a belligerent way. Rereading your statements you’re right you didn’t specify a view so if I inferred a viewpoint and read into the tone of it I apologize. Was not my intent.
