This photo from my favourite News Service Reuters shows 1,300 roses planted on a beach in Brazil. Each rose represents a gun death in that country during a four month period.
By comparison, in America, there are almost 30,000 gun deaths per year which works out to be 10,000 each four months. And just a few days ago 32 people died tragically in Virginia when a student went on a shooting spree.
Despite figures like these, the worldwide gun lobby claims that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And the cowboy President George Bush insists that citizens of his country should have the right to bear arms because the Government can't guarantee to protect them at all times.
Now, I don't want to be a troublemaker but the question I would like to ask is: if all the guns in the world held by private citizens were replaced by water pistols would the gun death rate decline?
Now commonsense (a scarce commodity) would say it would but the gun lobby would argue that it wouldn't. They would argue that people armed with no more than water pistols, if they wanted to kill someone, would simply find another way. Now exactly how someone would kill 32 people with a baseball bat or a wine bottle or a bow and arrow or a garrote in a couple of hours is beyond my imagination. You might be able to kill a couple of innocent folk if you were so inclined but the rest would probably turn on you and beat you to a pulp and serves you bloody right!
Regarding the Bush argument, if the Government can't protect you then perhaps they shouldn't be in government. And besides, if everyone had water pistols (which could be made to look exactly like the real thing), then, if someone broke in, the worst that could happen is that you get wet pyjamas and perhaps a few watermarks on the carpet while the intruder ends up looking like a drowned rat and will probably catch pneumonia and serves him bloody right!
Folks, call me old-fashioned but I think gun deaths are caused by guns that go bang and we should get rid of them ASAP.
Stuff the mega-buck gun lobby and George Bush!
10 comments:
That's one great looking photo, and I like the idea, as it's not been used for deaths as far as I know out our way.
The water pistol idea is a good one, but the NRA would find no monetary gain from selling any extras like vests, bullets etc, etc.
How did it go? " What we need is a chicken in every pot and a water pistol in every hand?"
Cheers!
I believe the gun laws desperately need to be revamped..... I rarely ever see a gun in Canada, I don't need a gun..... and I expect not to be confrotned with guns during an altercation..... idealism at its finest.... but so far so good (knocking really loudly on wood).
I wonder why a different type of gun couldn't be created... like a pepper spray gun where ones attacker would be subdued ...tee hee hee .... seriously subdued - but would not die from their injuries??? Guns are too easy, too granting of power.... too authoritative not to be tempting for the little guy/gal ...it actually doesn's make.... why are they in people's bedside tables? Why can one buy them easily.....
shaking my head....
shaking my head....
Hey Coffee and Lil, obviously you're not Rambos. The gun lobby will definitely not approve of you! Cheers.
That million person march sounds like a good idea, Worried. Hope it's soon!
A few good points but I think you missed the boat. Yes guns correlate well with death tolls, I'd have to say that it's the weapon of choice for multiple murders.
..As for protecting ourselves when our government can't, I'm thinking more along the lines of "protecting ourselves from our government if it comes down to that.". With the Patriot Act I & II, suspects being whisked away from airports only to be tortured in remote locations - it won't be long before the U.S has its own secret police. When that happens I'm sure we'll think, "if only we had guns, we could do something about this.".
But removal of guns won't necessarily mean that mass murders won't be possible. The internet is a vast (I would daresay infinite) resource. A disturbed but intelligent and dedicated college student could fashion himself several explosive devices.
Sick individuals will always find a way to inflict massive damage. Guns just make it a little bit more personal and much easier.
George, the points you raise are valid but surely getting rid of guns from the general population would be a giant step forward. The Wild West has long gone!Cheers.
The idea of the authors of the U.S. Constitution that a well-armed population could and would defend itself tyranny has long been obsolete. The theory that individuals or groups armed with rifles and pistols of any kind could stand up against the varied weapons of the U.S. military is a ridiculous dream which would be bloodily ended by helicopters, rockets, and napalm. There is, therefore, no excuse for putting assault rifles and such in the hands of citizens.
I find, in writing this, that I have a reservation when it comes to depriving an individual of a pistol to defend against intruders in the home. I don't like the idea of armed burglers (or muggers, for that matter) -- and crooks will always find ways to get weapons -- against unarmed victims. What's the solution? I don't know.
Triple dose Prozac or genetic modification is the answer, Fleming.
Adolph Hitler disarmed the general population before he decided to rule the world, you remember how well that went.In the US the cities with the strictist gun laws have the highest murder rates.Criminals don't obey existing laws, law abiding citizens do,making them victims with no way to protect themselves when more restrictive laws are passed in their states, cities or towns..
Post a Comment