School Shotings and Weapons Ban

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maven

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nemaroller

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/...us.html#People

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honeybee

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

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

:p

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davebat

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!

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

:eek: Baaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaa :lol: :lol:

Oh, sorry, you were being serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maven

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! ;)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978

: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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demotivater

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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).

True, it would never pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by szlamany

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdove

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

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_arc...ranscript.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maven

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?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdove

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdove

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.

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.

We all are :wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Yay, we win :D