At 12/20/12 02:43 AM, Sentio wrote:
1) We aren't talking about animals
You're denying that humans are animals?
we are talking about government workers who are being paid to follow government orders, and would lose their jobs if they didn't. It's not like they are breaking in here, no doubt you would be aware that they were coming and would have written notice.
And no doubt I would lock and barricade my doors and windows. I'm not gonna invite them in for tea so they can take my stuff, they'll have to break in. At that point I don't even care anymore. As far as I know, they're there to kill me.
2) I specifically said I was NOT fine with this. That isn't the issue- the difference here is in how we would go about dealing with it. While I would look for a non-violent solution, you state you would go on a killing spree and apparently feel no remorse whatsoever. Which is the difference between us, and one of the reasons so many people end up getting shot in the USA. That mentality is certainly more to blame than the current gun laws judging by the statistics that I looked at and you have been posting.
Actually, much of the gun violence tends to be domestic problems, namely bad parenting.
So the culture is what needs changing, and that isn't easy.
You don't just change culture. It happens on its own.
Mass advertising campaigns like those now used for drink driving and smoking may help, showing the impact of killing someone both on the shooter and the family of deceased. I still feel that the US government would be wrong to sit back and do nothing with homicide statistics as they are.
Many situations are harder to deal with than others.
Think of a highschool. It has an open campus, and students are allowed to leave during breaks and lunch, but because 10% of the kids that drive have wrecks, they close open campus. It allows drinks to be taken to class, but because a few kids decide to sneak vodka in, they ban drinks.
The mistakes of the few should not and will not reflect on the mass of the people.