School Shotings and Weapons Ban

[honeybee]

So, any change of mind after the latest school shootings? Or is it just going to be treated as "yet another accident"?

If ordinary citizens find it necessary to carry firearms for "self-defense", I can only say the state of law and order in the US is absolutely horrible.

But then, that's my personal view ;)

.

[dglienna]

It is illegal to carry a weapon in all but a few of the states, so I don't think most people think that everyone in the US is armed. The big thing is that if a burglar breaks into your house, he doesn't know if you have a weapon, but both he and yourself know that you have the right to shoot him if you find him in your house.
Keeps the peace, to some extent.

[yrwyddfa]

It is of course still legal to bear arms but I believe that it's not legal to arm bears. ;)

On more restrained note I think that the following logic applies

(i) Guns are available
(ii) Some people will have guns
(iii) Some people are mad
(iv) Some people who are mad will have guns
(v) Unhappy consequences such as reported today

I can't see how you can make guns unavailable through legislation. Americans (as far as I know) enjoy their right to bear arms.

Perhaps some form of stricter licensing is required.

[davebat]

So, any change of mind after the latest school shootings? Or is it just going to be treated as "yet another accident"?

If ordinary citizens find it necessary to carry firearms for "self-defense", I can only say the state of law and order in the US is absolutely horrible.


I dont think theres that many americans who walk the streets armed with guns, this was a mass murder. Im sure in Perfectville where you come from things like this dont happen, but in the real world people do some stupid crazy things

[dglienna]

they even require trigger locks to prevent tragedy in the home.

[Valleysboy1978]

It is illegal to carry a weapon in all but a few of the states, so I don't think most people think that everyone in the US is armed. The big thing is that if a burglar breaks into your house, he doesn't know if you have a weapon, but both he and yourself know that you have the right to shoot him if you find him in your house.
Keeps the peace, to some extent. :eek2:
I can't see how that would "keep the peace", only encourage a burglar to shoot you before robbing you.
I think I'd rather he take my stuff than take my life, given the choice. Considering most other western countries have a ban on firearms they are doing well enough, and it's only in the US that these school shootings seem to occur.

[NotLKH]

So, any change of mind after the latest school shootings?
No, I still think its a shame they cancelled "Friends"


Or is it just going to be treated as "yet another accident"?
If ordinary citizens find it necessary to carry firearms for "self-defense",


Surely even you can see this kid {the bad guy, law breaker, grandparent executioner} is the reason why some {the good guys} would want to carry guns for protection.


I can only say the state of law and order in the US is absolutely horrible.

Hmmm, lets see...the original show, Special Victims Unit, Criminal Intent, Trial By Jury, ... Yep! I agree!
We need More Law and Order!
...Or more CSI.
...Or another Monk or two...


But then, that's my personal view ;)

Thats ok, I forgive you.
:wave:

[crptcblade]

Damned Native Americans, I blame all the firewater. :mad:

[BodwadUK]

We had a stabbing in a school here in the UK. Kids can get weapons its just a matter of how nuts they are. :cry:

[crptcblade]

One time this kid sent a Komodo Dragon after another guy and it knocked him down and tore his face off. True story.

:eek2:

[davebat]

if you search for "Jeff Weise" on google (the killer) you'll see he posted on nazi forums.

[nemaroller]

School shootings happen everywhere, and it has no correlation with how strict gun laws are -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.stm

[BodwadUK]

Umm there are probably loads of people by the same name :afrog:

[Valleysboy1978]

Of course it correlates to how strict gun laws are. The more lax, the easier it is to get a gun!?!

Bod I definitely agree that if a kid is nuts he will harm people, but you have to admit there's a difference between some kid brandishing a knife and an AK-47

[BodwadUK]

I am not saying guns should be legal but spotting potential child psychos is more important than trying to ban what is probably millions of guns. Its all about practicallity :)

[MasterBlaster]

So, any change of mind after the latest school shootings? Or is it just going to be treated as "yet another accident"?

If ordinary citizens find it necessary to carry firearms for "self-defense", I can only say the state of law and order in the US is absolutely horrible.

But then, that's my personal view ;)

.

Erm. He was an American Indian, not an ordinary citizen. US government laws are generally not enforced on reservations. Bottom line if a Native wants a gun, he can pretty much have one regardless of the law.

There is a problem with outlawing guns specific to the US. There are so many weapons available on the black market, If you outlaw the sale of legal firearms only criminals will have guns. I don't bash that craphole of a country you live in. Don't bash the craphole of a country I live in.

[Xanith]

:eek2:
I can't see how that would "keep the peace", only encourage a burglar to shoot you before robbing you.
I think I'd rather he take my stuff than take my life, given the choice. Considering most other western countries have a ban on firearms they are doing well enough, and it's only in the US that these school shootings seem to occur.
Just something interesting I found...

"The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

Looks like "well enough" is not exactly cutting it.

X

[Cander]

Just something interesting I found...

"The 2000 International Crime Victimization Survey, the last survey done, shows the violent-crime rate in England and Wales was twice the rate in the U.S. When the new survey for 2004 comes out, that gap will undoubtedly have widened even further as crimes reported to British police have since soared by 35%, while declining 6% in the U.S."

Looks like "well enough" is not exactly cutting it.

X

Thats probably only during Football season.

[dglienna]

:eek2:
I can't see how that would "keep the peace", only encourage a burglar to shoot you before robbing you.
I think I'd rather he take my stuff than take my life, given the choice. Considering most other western countries have a ban on firearms they are doing well enough, and it's only in the US that these school shootings seem to occur.

Most burglars are just trying to come up with some cash for their latest "fix", and, thus, are unlikely to be armed. they usually prefer when their victims aren't home.

[MasterBlaster]

Most burglars are just trying to come up with some cash for their latest "fix", and, thus, are unlikely to be armed. they usually prefer when their victims aren't home.

True, but are you willing to bet your life on that? Personally I'd rather pump a few slugs in him first and then hear his sad story about why he was cleaning out my house.

[dglienna]

If he was still alive :)

[MasterBlaster]

If he was still alive :)

Absolutly, Aim for the kneecaps and we all come out winners. I don't get robbed or hurt and the Junkie would be robber get's his fix of pain medication from the local Jail's medical staff ;)

[dglienna]

and you brought that up, WHY ?

[szlamany]

I think this is nothing but ball ****:


Please have the common sense and maturity to remove that link - before some young innocent travels into it.

Please!

[BodwadUK]

Violent crime is rising in the UK. I dont think its because citizens cant be armed its because the Police cant. Why would a criminal with a gun fear and officer with their pepper spray. They dont need guns on patrol but they should if called out to an incident :)

[Valleysboy1978]

Besides, violent crime includes a punch-up. I would hardly consider a punch-up and a shooting level in terms of violence :ehh:

[BodwadUK]

Um knife crime and Gun crime is on the increase in the UK and its going up fast :eek:

[Valleysboy1978]

Because they are not punished hard enough.
I feel sorry for the police. My uncle is in the metropolitan police and he often arrests someone for assault and they are free to go before he even finishes the paper-work!! :mad:

[Shaggy Hiker]

Absolutly, Aim for the kneecaps and we all come out winners. I don't get robbed or hurt and the Junkie would be robber get's his fix of pain medication from the local Jail's medical staff ;)


MB, I assume you are aware that if you shoot somebody, you had best make sure they are dead. Anybody in law enforcement will confirm that you face much greater legal troubles if you just wound somebody in self-defence. If you are going to shoot them, make sure they are dead.

[szlamany]

MB, I assume you are aware that if you shoot somebody, you had best make sure they are dead. Anybody in law enforcement will confirm that you face much greater legal troubles if you just wound somebody in self-defence. If you are going to shoot them, make sure they are dead.

And the problem with that is most people couldn't shot a hand gun if their lives depended on it. That short barrel - without any real training - probably shoot yourself in the foot!

At which point the perp hits you over the head and steals your gun as well - more crack for the evening...

[MasterBlaster]

MB, I assume you are aware that if you shoot somebody, you had best make sure they are dead. Anybody in law enforcement will confirm that you face much greater legal troubles if you just wound somebody in self-defence. If you are going to shoot them, make sure they are dead.

Actually in this state if you shoot first and kill your getting Manslaughter. I guess they want to make it sporting and give the burgular a crack at you first
:confused:

And the problem with that is most people couldn't shot a hand gun if their lives depended on it. That short barrel - without any real training - probably shoot yourself in the foot!

At which point the perp hits you over the head and steals your gun as well - more crack for the evening...

Dude do not use a hand gun as protection in your house. Bullets go through walls bounce around and may come back and hit you or your kids or wife or whatever. It may even hit your computer and that is unacceptable. Use a short barrel shot gun w/pistolgrip and loaded with rock salt or Pepper Pellets.

[szlamany]

Dude do not use a hand gun as protection in your house. Bullets go through walls bounce around and may come back and hit you or your kids or wife or whatever. It may even hit your computer and that is unacceptable. Use a short barrel shot gun w/pistolgrip and loaded with rock salt or Pepper Pellets.

Personally, I do not do guns - a gun in your house gets your kids friend shot by accident - all too often...

The latest one around here was some grandpa dies - no one knows he has a loaded gun in the bedroom and some 12 year old shoots his friend.

That sucks too much.

[MasterBlaster]

trigger locks are free. In defense of the grandfather He probably didn't realize that 90% of the people in this country born after 1945 are morons and need a warning label on their cup of Starbucks coffee to know it's hot.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have heard a study showing that households that have guns have an increased chance of a member dying of a gunshot wound.

Now, there are several possible reasons for that, and the study was not looking at any reason in particular, they were simply measuring that statistic.

One possibility is that people in areas where gun violence is common, are more likely to be armed themselves. In which case, they are more likely to be shot, and their having a gun is incidental to their elevated chance of being shot.

Another possibility is that having a gun in the house should vastly increase the odds of non-crime related shooting. Basically, you can't accidentally shoot yourself if you don't have a gun (though I have heard of a case where a guy managed to kill himself while bow fishing, which is REALLY hard to do). Since you must have a gun to accidentally shoot yourself or somebody else with one, then households with guns would be the only households where such accidents are possible.

A third possibility, and one that people don't like to confront much, is that any kind of violence can become more deadly more rapidly if a gun is involved. It doesn't take a criminal bent on a crime, it just takes domestic violence, a more spontaneous and intractable problem.

[MasterBlaster]

A third possibility, and one that people don't like to confront much, is that any kind of violence can become more deadly more rapidly if a gun is involved. It doesn't take a criminal bent on a crime, it just takes domestic violence, a more spontaneous and intractable problem.

I know what you mean. I've been hiding the keys to my gun safe from my wife for years. :D

[nemaroller]

...though I have heard of a case where a guy managed to kill himself while bow fishing, which is REALLY hard to do.

LMAO

[honeybee]

A few months/years back there had been a similar debate here, and somebody had suggested that when a majority of the people are not armed, the thieves and criminals would also tend to carry either no arms or relatively less fatal ones like knives. Personally if you want to let people own guns, you are just setting up incidents such as the school shootings to happen. Yes, you need to weed out the lunatics, but I guess it's far more sensible to ensure that even an occasional lunatic can't shoot a bunch of kids first, before setting out to spot him.

Interestingly, I don't hear anyone make the same argument against burglaries and other gun-crimes: "We should spot the criminals first, instead of worrying about if they can carry guns or not".

It's obvious that identifying a lunatic in a crowd is much more difficult than identifying a gunman in a crowd. Or maybe the sense of self- prevails all other senses?

.

[demotivater]

Or maybe the sense of self- prevails all other senses?
.

Self preservation, perhaps.

Of course the statistics will say it's unsafe to have a gun in your home, that only makes sense. A home with a gun is more likely to have some sort of gun related incident than a home without. Um, duh? And a home with electricity is more likely to have an electrical fire than a home without electricity.

This kind of debate is, in general, pointless. There are a multitude of pro's, and a multitude of con's. Bottom line, for me anyway, my constitution says it's my right to own a gun, so I do. The last thing I'd want to do is spend a few days cleaning some scumbags blood and guts off my floor, but I'd certainly do it if it came to that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Many people ask me if I carry a gun when I wander off into the woods for weeks at a time. I don't. They weigh too much, and aren't useful enough. I weighed the cost/benefits, and came to this conclusion. The problem is this: there are situations where a gun is the only suitable tool. However, the situation has to be just right. In the woods, you MUST have sufficient time to react, because even with a gun you are less well armed than most of the things that might attack you. In a domestic setting, that may not be the case. If your assailant is less well armed than you, you have a chance even if you are surprised.

If you work through the scenarios, you need more than a gun to win in a domestic incident (burglary or what not), you also need a certain amount of luck. However, the costs of having a gun in the house are more nebulous. For me, the cost of a gun is serious due to the weight. There is no weight issue in a house, the question comes down to maximizing the utility of the gun while minimizing the incidental risk.

In any case, there is a calculation, and you had best make it.

[MasterBlaster]

Many people ask me if I carry a gun when I wander off into the woods for weeks at a time. I don't. They weigh too much, and aren't useful enough. I weighed the cost/benefits, and came to this conclusion. The problem is this: there are situations where a gun is the only suitable tool. However, the situation has to be just right. In the woods, you MUST have sufficient time to react, because even with a gun you are less well armed than most of the things that might attack you. In a domestic setting, that may not be the case. If your assailant is less well armed than you, you have a chance even if you are surprised.

A small lightweight pistol are usefull in the outdoors as noisemakers. A couple shots in the air will usually freeze or scare away an attaking critter like mountain lions, raccoons(yes they do attack) or coyotes and the like. Unfortunatly most attacks are from Bears(if you go near their cubs) Snakes and spiders in which case your gun will com in handy as a self execution device to avoid a painfull death. LOL

In light of the rising frequency of human - grizzly bear conflicts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, hunters, and fishermen to take extra precautions and keep alert of bears while in the field.

We advise that outdoorsmen wear noisy little bells on their clothing so as not to startle bears that aren't expecting them. We also advise outdoorsmen to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear. It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity.

Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear & grizzly bear excrement. Black bear excrement is smaller and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear excrement has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

[szlamany]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[demotivater]

You know Shaggy has bells on his outfit

:bigyello:

And I'm sure he keeps his eyes out for fresh signs of bear activity. You know, a pile of cigarette butts and a couple empty Strohs cans smashed up by a tree.

[honeybee]

Self preservation, perhaps.

Of course the statistics will say it's unsafe to have a gun in your home, that only makes sense. A home with a gun is more likely to have some sort of gun related incident than a home without. Um, duh? And a home with electricity is more likely to have an electrical fire than a home without electricity.

This kind of debate is, in general, pointless. There are a multitude of pro's, and a multitude of con's. Bottom line, for me anyway, my constitution says it's my right to own a gun, so I do. The last thing I'd want to do is spend a few days cleaning some scumbags blood and guts off my floor, but I'd certainly do it if it came to that.

It's very convenient for the sake of argument to compare electricity with guns. The only thing you forget is the electricity that is probably more lethal than a gun is heavily shielded from a human being. You have well insulated wiring with fuses and whatnots to protect your home from any foreseen electrical mishaps. You don't have a comparable safety for a gun. For the logical reason that if you make the gun difficult to reach, you wouldn't have any use for it because when you need it you wouldn't be able to reach it soon enough. So if you protect the gun, you are in trouble. If you don't protect it you are in trouble. Not the same with electricity (unless of course you have naked wires running all over your home, connected directly to the main power lines.

Hell the electrical company could be held responsible for any mishaps occuring because of a fault on their part, but the gun manufacturers don't want to hear any of it. They don't even want to ensure their guns would only land with genuine customers i.e. "peace-loving citizens" and not lunatics and criminals. Why would anyone need an automatic weapon to "defend" himself, after all? If that's really the case, that people need automatics to defend themselves, or go hunting with an AK 47 or the like, I think America has turned into a jungle, with the law of the jungle prevailing.

.

[honeybee]

School shootings happen everywhere, and it has no correlation with how strict gun laws are -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1953425.stm


Haven't heard of any school shootings (specially by students) in our country. And here we have two separate categories even in the police department: armed and unarmed.

Just to clear up any confusion:

In all the four incidents from the USA, mentioned in that reoprt, it's the students who have killed others. A parellel can only be found in the incidents reported from Germany, where again I guess half the shooters are "former" pupils.

School shootings happen "everywhere"? I guess the world is much much bigger than Scotland, Yemen, USA and Germany put together :rolleyes:

.

[Shaggy Hiker]

A small lightweight pistol are usefull in the outdoors as noisemakers. A couple shots in the air will usually freeze or scare away an attaking critter like mountain lions, raccoons(yes they do attack) or coyotes and the like. Unfortunatly most attacks are from Bears(if you go near their cubs) Snakes and spiders in which case your gun will com in handy as a self execution device to avoid a painfull death. LOL

Considering that I have weighed my spoons, I suspect that your idea of lightweight, and mine are different. Frankly, a couple firecrackers are of greater value than a small pistol in the woods.

As for raccoons, I actually got in a fight with one over a table in an Everglades restraunt. The raccoon hopped up into the chair next to me, and started stealing things off the table. I whacked it with the centerpiece, and the fight was on.

The odd thing about it was that, while there were plenty of other people in the restraunt, nobody appeared to find it at all unusual that I was having a tug-of-war with a raccoon over the centerpiece. Nobody took any notice. Those darn 'coons are strong, too. Should have hit him with the grated pepper.

I think the greatest threat in this state is probably mountain lions, rather than bears.....no wait, I forgot about Idabillies! They are the most dangerous.

[demotivater]

It's very convenient for the sake of argument to compare electricity with guns. The only thing you forget is the electricity that is probably more lethal than a gun is heavily shielded from a human being. You have well insulated wiring with fuses and whatnots to protect your home from any foreseen electrical mishaps. You don't have a comparable safety for a gun. For the logical reason that if you make the gun difficult to reach, you wouldn't have any use for it because when you need it you wouldn't be able to reach it soon enough. So if you protect the gun, you are in trouble. If you don't protect it you are in trouble. Not the same with electricity (unless of course you have naked wires running all over your home, connected directly to the main power lines.

Hell the electrical company could be held responsible for any mishaps occuring because of a fault on their part, but the gun manufacturers don't want to hear any of it. They don't even want to ensure their guns would only land with genuine customers i.e. "peace-loving citizens" and not lunatics and criminals. Why would anyone need an automatic weapon to "defend" himself, after all? If that's really the case, that people need automatics to defend themselves, or go hunting with an AK 47 or the like, I think America has turned into a jungle, with the law of the jungle prevailing.

.

Replace electricity with matches. :rolleyes:

I wasn't actually comparing electricity to firearms, just pointing out the silliness of the "more likely" arguement.

You're generalizing to much. From what you said, if there's a gun in the house, you're in trouble, period. That's rediculous and just plain not true.
And when you live in this country, then your opinions about it might carry some weight.

[honeybee]

Replace electricity with matches. :rolleyes:

I wasn't actually comparing electricity to firearms, just pointing out the silliness of the "more likely" arguement.

You're generalizing to much. From what you said, if there's a gun in the house, you're in trouble, period. That's rediculous and just plain not true.
And when you live in this country, then your opinions about it might carry some weight.

Yeah, that's a good point, me not being American would probably not understand some of the intricacies. However the generalization still holds.

And the killer had a 14-year old girlfriend who's carrying his baby???? Pregnant at 14???

.

[NotLKH]

Pregnant at 14???
.
Hey, they can get pregnant even younger!
I knew one who ended up pregnant by 13.
You got to get started early if you really want to be on welfare.

[demotivater]

My favorite is the high schools with day care for students babies. I guess they serve a good purpose, just to bad they're even needed.

[rdove]

It is illegal to carry a weapon in all but a few of the states,

That isn't really true at all. In most states you can apply for a consealed carry permit, which allows you to carry your gun legally in most places. As long as you haven't committed any major crimes, it is relatively easy to get one of those permits in most states. If you take a hand gun class you can apply for a Non-Resident Flordia permit which allows you to carry your firearm in about 34 states.

[dglienna]

I've never heard that, and I have never seen anyone with a weapon on them out in the open (non-concealed) except for police officials. Concealed is another thing altogether, and most of those were illicit, at least in my state.

I think if I had been carrying a gun, that I would have shot someone by now, so it's better off that I haven't. Lots of people are getting shot over traffic disputes. Glad it never happened to me.

[honeybee]

I never thought about this angle:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4386653.stm

But then since he didn't make any statement till it was too late, this angle could actually be true.

.

[nemaroller]

Haven't heard of any school shootings (specially by students) in our country. And here we have two separate categories even in the police department: armed and unarmed.

Just to clear up any confusion:

In all the four incidents from the USA, mentioned in that reoprt, it's the students who have killed others. A parellel can only be found in the incidents reported from Germany, where again I guess half the shooters are "former" pupils.

School shootings happen "everywhere"? I guess the world is much much bigger than Scotland, Yemen, USA and Germany put together :rolleyes:

.

Point to note - someone mentioned they happen only in the US. Perhaps you'd be more satisfied with 'school shootings CAN happen anywhere'. How about kniving rampages?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1376982.stm

[yrwyddfa]

I suggest you stop arming bears :eek:

[demotivater]

I'm sure the schools in India are perfectly safe, well, unless it's a Christian school eh, honeybee?

[yrwyddfa]

Imagine if you armed 'Bees ?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Bees are already armed well enough for my comfort.

[honeybee]

Point to note - someone mentioned they happen only in the US. Perhaps you'd be more satisfied with 'school shootings CAN happen anywhere'. How about kniving rampages?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1376982.stm

To counter such stupid arguments, I can only say that school shootings don't seem to happen in countless other countries where carrying a gun is ordinarily not allowed.

So now you want to equate knives with guns? Nice try. :rolleyes: I shall wait till you get to the level of equating guns with a fistfight before I can even think of responding to that argument.

Jeez, it sure looks as if individual opinion counts more than the general welfare....

.

[Maven]

Our gun laws are not what created this problem. People have had the right to carry arms since the beginning of our country. It's what makes america one of the hardest countires to invade on earth, because the civilians are armed better then some armys out there in the world.

Instead I blame this on 2 different factors. 1. The media in our country has changed a lot in a bad way. A lot of music out there tries to make ganster life look great. 2. There is a ****load of single parents out there trying to raise kids by themselves.

[davebat]

It's what makes america one of the hardest countires to invade on earth, because the civilians are armed better then some armys out there in the world.


Lol, dont forgot that your all so fat our tanks would have trouble running you over.

I think tradgedys like this happen because some people like hurting others. People are the most vicious animals on the face of the earth, get over it.

[nemaroller]

Honeybee, being shot or being stabbed really makes no difference - you're pretty much doomed either way. One is far more efficient and quick however. I posted the kniving rampage as a proof of concept - a person can still do much damage with such a simple weapon.

I'm not a gun advocate, I live in America, and quite frankly, there is a very small percentage of the population that would even think of carrying a gun on their person through public - unless they are hunting or law enforcement.

Bottom line - what about America's gun laws makes you upset? I don't see how someone living in another country can be so concerned. Living is a risk - you can be shot, hit by a bus, get stabbed, have a fatal heart attack, slip down your stairs and break your neck.

Also, I'm also 6 foot and 150 pounds - and I'd appreciate you foreigners keep your misguided dillusional perceptions about me to yourself.

[davebat]

Also, I'm also 6 foot and 150 pounds - and I'd appreciate you foreigners keep your misguided dillusional perceptions about me to yourself.

My apologies, it appears only 127 million from 293 million of you are overweight.

Well done you, keep it up.

http://www.obesity.org/subs/fastfacts/obesity_US.shtml
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#People

By the way, this is the internet, there are no foreigners here.

[Xanith]

To counter such stupid arguments, I can only say that school shootings don't seem to happen in countless other countries where carrying a gun is ordinarily not allowed.

So now you want to equate knives with guns? Nice try. :rolleyes: I shall wait till you get to the level of equating guns with a fistfight before I can even think of responding to that argument.

Jeez, it sure looks as if individual opinion counts more than the general welfare....

.
As I stated before violent crime is on the rise in the UK while it has been steadily declining in the US since the 1980’s. While guns are outlawed in the UK the average US citizen has no trouble obtaining one. Therefore the argument put forth that guns are the sole cause of violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery) collapses under its own weight.

To be honest someone who writes something like “I can only say that school shootings don't seem to happen in countless other countries where carrying a gun is ordinarily not allowed.” Is akin to saying well cars that don’t have an engine are not likely to go anywhere, Duh. And you called him stupid.

His argument that violence in schools is not the sole proprietorship of the US is absolutely correct. He actually presented evidence to his argument, now I know how facts and figures seem to bother you HB and you have a hard time looking outside your little I hate Bush and the US little world but guess what? You are wrong, again. No surprise there. :)

X

[szlamany]

My apologies, it appears only 127 million from 293 million of you are overweight.


And most of those fatties have immigrated recently from countries like yours!

:p

[davebat]

just out of interest was there a reason the constitution originally was all for people bearing arms? We never learnt american history in school.

[szlamany]

just out of interest was there a reason the constitution originally was all for people bearing arms? We never learnt american history in school.

It's because of the fact that the common folk in England where abused by the ruling body.

So the common folk here were not going to allow that to happen again.

And guns are really not a problem here - I grew up in NYC - live 60 minutes from there now - and guns are not a problem.

People are a problem.

[davebat]

And most of those fatties have immigrated recently from countries like yours!

:p

What does "countries like yours" mean? What are you talking about?

[szlamany]

What does "countries like yours" mean? What are you talking about?

That's me just being sarcastic. If you are going to make statements about "us all being fat", then I'm going to fire back with something as equally stupid...

Just trying to keep things light and airy :bigyello:

[davebat]

That's me just being sarcastic. If you are going to make statements about "us all being fat", then I'm going to fire back with something as equally stupid...

Just trying to keep things light and airy :bigyello:

oh well, if thats the case you all stink as well. :cool:

[szlamany]

oh well, if thats the case you all stink as well. :cool:

Now we are fat and smelly - eh?

Have to go for the liposuction and a day at the spa!

[davebat]

lol - I couldnt find a link to support it, but ill keep looking

[demotivater]

I'm sure the schools in India are perfectly safe, well, unless it's a Christian school eh, honeybee?

Conveniently ignoring this one hb?

[MasterBlaster]

As I stated before violent crime is on the rise in the UK while it has been steadily declining in the US since the 1980’s. While guns are outlawed in the UK the average US citizen has no trouble obtaining one. Therefore the argument put forth that guns are the sole cause of violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery) collapses under its own weight.


Of course it's on the decline in the US. Everyone here is to Lazy to Rob or murder anyone and we're so fat and smelly no one want's to rape us.

[Shaggy Hiker]

just out of interest was there a reason the constitution originally was all for people bearing arms? We never learnt american history in school.


Back when that was written, it was possible for a bunch of citizens with rifles to be a credible force relative to the army. One example of this was the early part of the civil war when neither side had anything like a professional army. A better example would be Concord and Lexington, or the Whiskey Rebellion.

Today, that isn't the case any longer. The US army has weapons that even Bill G couldn't afford (he might buy some, but he couldn't maintain them). A bunch of rednecks with rifles couldn't do anything....except be terrorists. We have created a situation where armed rebellion is reserved for guerilla warfare.

The reason that amendment was added to the constitution is no longer applicable today. However, people have found new reasons for it.

[MasterBlaster]

The reason that amendment was added to the constitution is no longer applicable today. However, people have found new reasons for it.

That is not the only reason it was added to the constitution. A firearm was necessary for most of the citizens to survive when the constitution was written. For food hunting and self protection. there was no formidable police force then. Could you imagine west of the misissippi being settled by unarmed white men?

Now citizens still have a need for protection, food and to keep the government in check. It's our choice to decide if we want to rely on the government to guarentee the first two. Neither choice is right or wrong just personal preferance. You are right that an armed civillan population would loose in a landslide to the government. Considering the amout of casualties involved in becoming a police state, an armed population will still make the government think twice about taking away the bill of rights and trashing the constitution.

in general

The basic reasons for the ammendment are still around today. We just don't notice as much because of the awesome infastructure we've built to support most of the population. Owning a gun does not make you a redneck. Marrying you sister/cousin/sheep does. If a person is not a criminal and is mentally sound they should be allowed to own a gun if they see fit. If a person commits a crime with a gun then they are a criminal and should be prosecuted. It's wrong to take the rights away of a law abiding citizen because of another persons action.

[demotivater]

The reason that amendment was added to the constitution is no longer applicable today. However, people have found new reasons for it.

Some would say the right to free speech or freedom of religon are no longer applicable either. Which is why it's important to take a stand against anyone touching any part of our constitution/bill of rights.

[Valleysboy1978]

Our gun laws are not what created this problem. People have had the right to carry arms since the beginning of our country. It's what makes america one of the hardest countires to invade on earth, because the civilians are armed better then some armys out there in the world. :eek: Baaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa :lol: :lol:

Oh, sorry, you were being serious.
2. There is a ****load of single parents out there trying to raise kids by themselves.Yeah well, if they go at it like a pair of rabbits they have to pay the price won't they! ;)

[BodwadUK]

Or at least the men will while the 'Mothers' scrounge and use the money for themselves :afrog:

[MasterBlaster]

:eek: Baaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa :lol: :lol:

Oh, sorry, you were being serious.


That's not too far from the truth. I'd put money on South Central LA, Chicago or Atlanta against most countries armys. :lol:

[Shaggy Hiker]

Some would say the right to free speech or freedom of religon are no longer applicable either. Which is why it's important to take a stand against anyone touching any part of our constitution/bill of rights.

I'm not arguing that point. While MB was right that I overlooked two reasons for that amendment, I still think that the real issue was "When in the course of human events....etc." My point was simply that that reason is no longer valid because a modern army is far better equipped than an armed citizenry could ever afford to be.

Frankly, I would prefer a ban on handguns. They aren't much use for hunting (though they are used for certain types of hunting, but there are ways around that), and they are only so-so for self defense. However, they are excellent for crime.

[szlamany]

I'm not arguing that point. While MB was right that I overlooked two reasons for that amendment, I still think that the real issue was "When in the course of human events....etc." My point was simply that that reason is no longer valid because a modern army is far better equipped than an armed citizenry could ever afford to be.

Frankly, I would prefer a ban on handguns. They aren't much use for hunting (though they are used for certain types of hunting, but there are ways around that), and they are only so-so for self defense. However, they are excellent for crime.

Just a quick point - we are 50 states here - the army (and all other branches of military) are federal. The states do not create armies. Some states would never consider losing gun-rights - some states could care less - but a concensus to amend would be hard to create (in my opinion).

[Shaggy Hiker]

True, it would never pass.

[MasterBlaster]

Just a quick point - we are 50 states here - the army (and all other branches of military) are federal. The states do not create armies.

That's a good point. a Lot of anti gun activists argue that the states national guard covers that. Yes the national guard is paid by It's own state. For some reason though, they neglect to mention that the National guard Chain of Command ends up at....guess who. The president of the United States. The President trumps the Govenor of a state when It comes to the national guard. The National Guard is not a State Militia! It is a branch of the DOD which is federal. It is no different than the regular army other than the federal government wheasels out of paying the bills.

[rdove]

Frankly, I would prefer a ban on handguns. They aren't much use for hunting (though they are used for certain types of hunting, but there are ways around that), and they are only so-so for self defense. However, they are excellent for crime.

and excellent for stopping crimes as well... so-so for self defense? Only if you don't know what your doing, but those people should have guns anyway.

[dglienna]

The gov't doesn't want crime to end, as that's the only way to spend most of it's money. If crime were 0%, then there would be no need for law enforcement, and no reason to spend the money for it.

Not a good situation, but, that is how we adapted the constitution.

[Shaggy Hiker]

and excellent for stopping crimes as well... so-so for self defense? Only if you don't know what your doing, but those people should have guns anyway.

Pretty much any situation where a handgun would work for home defense could be handled just as easily with a shotgun.

It ain't the wild west, even out here where it is the wild west. If you don't have your gun out and pointed, you lose! You need a small amount of warning (or else you need to be a paranoid lunatic), because any thief has the initiative (he knows that he's there, you don't initially). If you have sufficient warning for a handgun, you have sufficient warning for a shotgun, and you will be more effective with the shotgun.

That's why I said a handgun was only so-so for self defense. I suppose that isn't accurate. It would be more accurate to say that a handgun isn't superior for self defense.

[Maven]

Pretty much any situation where a handgun would work for home defense could be handled just as easily with a shotgun.

It ain't the wild west, even out here where it is the wild west. If you don't have your gun out and pointed, you lose! You need a small amount of warning (or else you need to be a paranoid lunatic), because any thief has the initiative (he knows that he's there, you don't initially). If you have sufficient warning for a handgun, you have sufficient warning for a shotgun, and you will be more effective with the shotgun.

That's why I said a handgun was only so-so for self defense. I suppose that isn't accurate. It would be more accurate to say that a handgun isn't superior for self defense.

For self defense, a handgun is the best weapon you can have at close range. The size of a shotgun makes it slower to move around, time means everything in a self-defense situation.

[nemaroller]

You know what I found in the Consitution

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

One could interpret that to mean - only a citizen of the US or natural born citizen - at the time of the Adoption of this constitution - can become president.

It then states at the end "and been fourteen years a resident within the united states" - which I find quite contrary to the opening segment which seems to state no foreigner can become president at all.


Hold on to your hats, but I think its saying Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president. :(
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[Shaggy Hiker]

For self defense, a handgun is the best weapon you can have at close range. The size of a shotgun makes it slower to move around, time means everything in a self-defense situation.

If you're that close, I think a knife would be better.

I'm having a hard time coming up with a situation where the speed of moving a shotgun is going to make a difference. Are you imagining a Wild West quick-draw competition? What is a realistic scenario?

[szlamany]

It's almost silly to add to this debate...

But even those trained in shooting a handgun can barely do it.

The best gun to shot is always a shotgun - something with a long barrel...

Handguns are never raised to "in-front-of-the-eye" for proper alignment - they are shot from the hip and normally hit the floor or ceiling...

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's almost silly to add to this debate...

But even those trained in shooting a handgun can barely do it.

The best gun to shot is always a shotgun - something with a long barrel...

Handguns are never raised to "in-front-of-the-eye" for proper alignment - they are shot from the hip and normally hit the floor or ceiling...

I hadn't done any pistol practice until fairly recently. I was astonished by how innacurate they are. Firing a target .22, it was possible to hit a small stationary target at 20 yards, but it wasn't easy. Firing a .44 magnum, it was hard to get off a second shot with any kind of accuracy in reasonable time.

Firing a double barreled shot gun, it is common to fire at two distinct targets without significant pause. Furthermore, the distance for accuracy is much higher, and the damage done is higher....depending on the load.

[rdove]

Pretty much any situation where a handgun would work for home defense could be handled just as easily with a shotgun.


yea for home defense...but that requires you to be at home. What if you not? Say one day your leaving the supermarket and someone pulls a knife out and says "gimmie all your money". I think i'd like to have my handgun in that situation...it concealed so he doesn't know I have it...its a little hard to conceal a shotgun.

[szlamany]

yea for home defense...but that requires you to be at home. What if you not? Say one day your leaving the supermarket and someone pulls a knife out and says "gimmie all your money". I think i'd like to have my handgun in that situation...it concealed so he doesn't know I have it...its a little hard to conceal a shotgun.

Actually I feel that if someone asked me for all my money at a grocery store, I would just give it to them. Karma will take care of the rest...

Most law enforcement people would say the same thing.

Pulling out a gun in a grocery store is a pretty stupid thing to do - regardless of the situation.

[demotivater]

The laws in most of the states effectively tell you to retreat untill retreat is impossible, then you can use lethal force. So, in that situation, a shotgun is your best friend. Preferably a short barrel, or a long barrel with a wide choke. Considering that your field of fire is only going to be 20 feet or so (if you've retreated as far as realisticly possible), you need the shot to spread a bit to make sure you hit whatever you're pointing towards. But, in most situations, a handgun is much easier to grab hold of and make "combat ready". So, a larger caliber handgun with a round that will expand on impact rather than going through a target is your best bet. Personally, I'd recommend one of each. :)

And if you're having trouble hitting a target at the range, spend more time at the range. If you own a gun, it's your responsibility to learn to use it properly. In many areas, there are free firearms safety/training classes offered.

[Shaggy Hiker]

yea for home defense...but that requires you to be at home. What if you not? Say one day your leaving the supermarket and someone pulls a knife out and says "gimmie all your money". I think i'd like to have my handgun in that situation...it concealed so he doesn't know I have it...its a little hard to conceal a shotgun.

Where I live, I think this is mighty unlikely, but if it does happen, you will get tunnel vision (common reaction to such a situation). How will you avoid collateral damage? You sure won't be claiming self-defense if you clip an innocent bystander.

Also, are you eager to kill somebody? Anybody who pulls a knife on you will not be standing a good safe distance away. When he sees that gun come out, he will probably try to stab you (I sure would, at that point it's him or you). If you draw it, you should be intending to shoot it. Are you? Most people think they are, but few people really enjoy the prospect of killing someone. And don't be just wounding anybody, either.

[rdove]

Eager to kill someone...no. Would I draw my gun with intentions of shooting a possible threat, you bet.

It is obvious that nothing I say is going to change anyone's point of view in this thread, as you already have your minds made up. So I am going to with draw from this thread as I am just wasting my time.

[Shaggy Hiker]

We all are :wave:

[Valleysboy1978]

Eager to kill someone...no. Would I draw my gun with intentions of shooting a possible threat, you bet.

It is obvious that nothing I say is going to change anyone's point of view in this thread, as you already have your minds made up. So I am going to with draw from this thread as I am just wasting my time.Yay, we win :D