Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on April 10, 2007, 08:52:40 AM
-
and why it is a bad idea..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHD1uxujnFQ&eurl
lazs
-
Guns against the undead? Fool Please..
I'll hang on to my saber and flame thrower thank you.
-
gotta get too close for the saber and the democrats already came for our flamethrowers.
for long range I like a nice garand.. shorter range even the puny .223 is good... better is a good shotgun with number 4 buck and when it gets nasty and close... a good .357, 44 or 45 handgun.
You need a large caliber so that you can knock em down even without a head shot. You can either leave em flopping or put a 22 round in their head to finish em off. a saber or club or ax just gets zombie blood on everyone.
lazs
-
You never know when zombies will attack. Be prepared, and don't let anyone make you feel silly for preparing.
-
yep... right now they are just milling around the neighborhood and living in section 8 housing... they seem to be soothed by loud music and they are content to just glare at humans as we go to work but... this won't last.
they seem to have some crude form of a language but event that is deteriorating.
They seem content to break things and make noise for now.
lazs
-
When they take all the guns from the law abiding citizens the crime rate will increase. It's a no brainer. In Australia the violent crime rate increased 300% almost overnight when they collected the handguns and large bore rifles from home owners. The same thing will happen here.
-
Awesome Video!
C'mon, a saber? A Gladius or a Katana would be far better suited. Both have a far better stab, and the Katana would really make better arcs on foot for defending yourself from those grubby zombie hands. Throw in a Wakizashi and you've got a formula for zombie mush.
But that's after I exhaust all my 30cal ammo and every bit of buckshot I've got left. I'd love to see what my longbow would do to them. They had to defend themselves against zombies in the middle ages too right?
Zombie vs. halberd? OOOOOOOOoooooooooo
-
Minigunning zombies must be such a riot..
-
looks like it's time to work the 2nd on up to a SC ruling once and for all on individual right.
If either side loses the appeal, I feel sure it will go to the SC. I'm not sure the SC will hear it though.
D.C., Fenty Appeal Court's Gun Ban Reversal (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=596&sid=1110382)
-
Prediction: 200+ posts on this thread.
-
I thought gun control was hitting your target.
-
It is RPM, for those who know anything about how to actually use one.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and why it is a bad idea..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHD1uxujnFQ&eurl
lazs
This is the best argument for gun ownership that I have ever seen.
Remember fella's... Organize before they Rise!!!!
(http://tn3-2.deviantart.com/fs6/300W/i/2005/047/2/7/Shaun_of_the_Dead_by_nightlink.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Sting138
When they take all the guns from the law abiding citizens the crime rate will increase. It's a no brainer. In Australia the violent crime rate increased 300% almost overnight when they collected the handguns and large bore rifles from home owners. The same thing will happen here.
Fair dinkum?
300% you say?
Bloody hell, I better sharpen up my pointy stick a bit more.
Large bore rifles were never banned in Australia, I still own a couple.
The only thing they banned was semi and full auto actions, the calibre is irrelevant.
Handguns have never been legal here without a licence. Concealed carry just doesnt happen unless you are Law Enforcement/Security officer of some type, it never has.(even those guys usually overtly carry..ie, clearly visible hip holster)
The only people who cant get their hands on a legal firearm in Australia are those who have no need, right or ability to have a gun in their hands. (Crims, nutcases,drug addicts, wife bashers etc, any history of domestic violence or drug charges immediately bins a weapons licence application, as does any psychiatric history)
Your average Joe Farmer can get a permit in no time at all, same for proffessional shooters/hunters/park rangers/game keepers/vets etc.
Anybody who actually has a legitimate need for a weapon, can get one, simple as that.
I'm guessing the '300% increase in violent crime' has about as much of a basis in fact as the rest of your learned statements in that post....ie none.
IMHO firearms for 'home defence' points to a far greater problem than firearm ownership rights.
-
so bluedog... no one in your country has ever been attacked where a firearm would have saved them?
You don't feel just a tiny bit like god telling that person (or their surviving relatives) that they just have suck it up ?
What all wise person decides who "needs" a firearm and what type they need?
lazs
-
For the time period of 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.
The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
New Zealand currently has a much lower homicide and violent crime incident rate per capita than Australia; it also has a much more relaxed firearm policy.
From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks,
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.
The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!
[/i]
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so bluedog... no one in your country has ever been attacked where a firearm would have saved them?
It's not that simple. The more there are guns on the streets the more the guns will be used. In extreme cases it would lead the robbers to kill their victims by a surprise and then clean them up.
However I'm not for complete ban of firearms. There needs to be some restrictions, but not a total ban or very strict restrictions.
-
Heh, some interesting newspaper articles in Australia after the anti-gun nuts went crazy using the demented acts of a lone gunman in Port Arthur, Tasmania, on a Sunday in April 1996 to justify their crusade:
"The number of Victorians murdered with firearms has almost trebled since the introduction of tighter gun laws.
--Geelong Advertiser, Victoria, Sept. 11, 1997.
"Gun crime is on the rise despite tougher laws imposed after the Port Arthur massacre, but gun control lobbyists maintain Australia is a safer place. . . . The number of robberies involving guns jumped 39% last year to 2183, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and assaults involving guns rose 28% to 806. The number of gun murders, excluding the Port Arthur massacre, increased by 19% to 75."
--"Gun Crime Rises Despite Controls," Illawarra Mercury Oct. 28, 1998.
"Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%."
--"Gun crime soars," Morning Herald, Sydney, Oct. 28, 1998.
"Murders by firearms have actually increased (in Victoria) since the buyback scheme, which removed 225,000 registered and unregistered firearms from circulation. There were 18 shooting murders in 1996-97, after the buyback scheme had been introduced, compared with only six in 1995-1996 before the scheme started."
--"Killings rise in gun hunt," Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 23, 1998.
"Victoria is facing one of its worst murder tolls in a decade and its lowest arrest rate ever."
--Herald Sun, Melbourne, Dec. 11, 1999.
"The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago."
--South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.
-----------
Did you know that even prior to the Port Arthur attacks, gun laws at that time required any Tasmanian who wanted to own a firearm or even an air rifle to pass a gun handling course and carry a photo-bearing gun license that had to be produced prior to the purchase of any firearm or ammunition? The only end result for all Australians was a government turn-in scheme and the follow-on destruction of more than 640,000 hunting rifles and shotguns, and a higher violent crime rate afterwards.
-
gun ban laws have little effect on criminals because criminals don't obey the law, that's why they are called criminals.
-
And the U.S. is heading the same way.
-
fishu... mighty white of you to allow that we should be able to have some guns to protect ourselves even if you wish to "restrict" them.
Can you tell me what kind of "sensible" gun laws your lordship would allow us poor subjects to own?
Perhaps you can tell me of a gun law that decreased crime or protected anyone?
If old people or women or the infirm are victimized by the young and strong... well... that would just have to be the price you are willing to pay right?
lazs
-
Zombies aren't too scary. That is unless you get a pack of those ones that can run fast. Short distance quick hobbles aren't too bad, but those dawn of the dead ones can friggin run.
-
If you haven't read this yet, it's a great book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Zombie_Survival_Guide
Very practical approach to surviving a Zombie infestation, including weapons, avoiding stairs, etc.
-
Gun control means squat.....
“Gun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .”
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fishu... mighty white of you to allow that we should be able to have some guns to protect ourselves even if you wish to "restrict" them.
Protect from what? Would you need a .50 caliber machinegun to fend off robbers?
From the government? You're nothing but a sheep if you think you and your buddies are having any restraint over the government with your armoury. While you're happy with your buddies to have guns, the government is herding you with their propaganda towards their agenda. So much for the defense against an oppressive government - They've got you with their propaganda.
If it's the government you're afraid.. don't worry, they can do everything they want and mostly with your consent! You're under influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates your opinion over a wide range of political issues.
Not a long while ago the majority was for the Iraq war.. now the numbers have dropped. All the sudden many pro-war people have turned anti-war and they act like they've been always against the war.
It's a laughable BS to claim that all the neat guns are there against a possible oppressive government. You don't either need a heavy armoury against a robber.
As much as I like guns, I don't think it is wise or necessary to give everyone all the guns they want. Without restrictions we might as well give them a right to own a nuke. Where should the line go? I don't know, but I do know that the line must be drawn somewhere.
-
When it comes down to it its not even about the guns, because it no one had ever invented them, or if they were suddenly to be removed from society, humans would just resort back to other weapons.
It comes down to an issue of who you trust. Do you trust individuals to protect themselves and be responsible or do you trust the state to protect ALL individuals? Obviously some individuals are bad people who would rob you for crack. We cannot trust these individuals. Obviously the state cannot be everywhere all the time without draconian laws that burn us all and such dramatic over expenditure on law enforcement that our children starve.
Laws only work in a democratic society because the majority of people follow them. Laws should only be created in a democratic society because the majority of people agree with them. Laws from an isolated minority, such as prohibition or alcohol or marijuana have been proven to be colossal failures, because people don't respect them. Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves from those who don't abide.
We can either trust people or the state. Sometimes in modern mass society it is hard to trust people, but we must. This goes both ways (lazs), and we must not always live in fear. I'd hope we can all agree that trusting to the state as a parent figure in social policy is a really bad idea.
Do for yourself before you ask someone to do for you.
Help thy neighbor as you would want them to help you.
If we could all help each other more we wouldn't need police all over the streets trying to mediate disputes. Police should be for handcuffs and fingerprints, not for peace and quiet, cuz they're never going to be able to keep it quiet.
But some people will always break the law and threaten others with violence. Even in the 21st century there are, sadly enough, people who still need killing in this world. Ask the terrorist for their guns and see if they give them up.
Ask the Chinese for their guns and see if they hand them over. (Ha, they'd sell them if we'd let them!)
-
Fishu: I respectfully disagree with your "just lie back and think of England" approach to losing freedom.
-
Fishu, How did you read fear of government into this?
-
Originally posted by Kuhn
Fishu, How did you read fear of government into this?
I didn't say that someone said so in this particular threat. The fear of oppressive government has been very often used as a reason against gun restrictions. I was wondering from what does he want to defend himself with a wide range of weapons.
Chairboy,
The gun restrictions in the UK are a failure and I've never denied that. I haven't claimed that the guns needs to be totally banned.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
They've got you with their propaganda.
If it's the government you're afraid.. don't worry, they can do everything they want and mostly with your consent! You're under influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates your opinion over a wide range of political issues.
Without restrictions we might as well give them a right to own a nuke.
First off, propaganda operates everywhere, the US, Europe, China, everywhere. It is itself neither good nor bad. It is an informational weapon, and its character is only reflected by the hand that wields it. Edward Bernays argued that it was a good and necessary thing in modern society (in 1928), but qualified it by saying that propaganda isn't deceptive. Not that I agree with that though.
If you think they don't have propaganda in a store near you then who's the sheep? One would do better to say, "We're under the influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates our opinion over a wide range of political issues."
The nuke statement is just over the top absolutism. I personally don't believe that anyone should have nukes. I think they're a foolish waste of societies resources (the reason I don't believe Iran is building a bomb). You're right that a line has to be drawn, because flame throwers in shopping malls makes only for good video games. But some responsible citizens enjoy owning flame throwers for scholarly study, historical preservation and fun.
Yeah, where should the line be drawn? Is my Katana dangerous to my neighbors even though I am a historian that studies martial history and weaponry? NO! My katana (and my sai for that matter) stands in it's place of peace ready should I or my neighbors ever need it. No one #$#ks with me and my friends, but everyone who is kind is welcome in my place.
edit- oh yeah, Finland might be nice this time of year, but there are places in the US that could qualify as war zones under some definitions. People hear shots at night and sleep on the floor. They should be able to sleep without fear. Taking their guns will not do that.
-
The last time that happened to me I just used my handy sword to dispatch the aggressor.
Firearms are really not needed.
shamus
-
Originally posted by 68Hawk
If you think they don't have propaganda in a store near you then who's the sheep? One would do better to say, "We're under the influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates our opinion over a wide range of political issues."
The nuke statement is just over the top absolutism.
I never denied there isn't propaganda over here.
The nuke statement was meant to go over the top to make a point that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Talk of the gun restrictions isn't necessarily an evil monster. It is not wrong for the pro-gun people to consider where the line should go; That doesn't make them anti-gun.
Taking their guns will not do that.
Once again.. I'm not calling for the UK kind of gun restrictions. Besides, in those areas the problem is something else than the guns itself. The guns however do cause the damage as a result of some other problem. Should we allow them to carry bazookas so they could sleep better at night? The line.
Anyway.. if they're already sleeping on the floors, then how did a gun help them to get on the bed?
In the UK there are reported cases of the youth wearing bulletproof vests 24/7, even at sleep. Some carry an illegal gun, but they still can't sleep well at night. What use was the gun here, again?
I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments just doesn't make sense :)
-
I agree that many of the arguments on the subject don't make sense, from both sides. I also agree that we have to keep guns and especially heavy weaponry out of the hands of criminals or people who are not responsible enough to have them.
In many violent areas where people are sleeping on the floors, the violence has been encouraged because of reactive and frankly dangerous over regulation of guns.
It is not wrong for the pro-gun people to consider where the line should go; That doesn't make them anti-gun.
You're right, and I know you were using the nuke thing as an extreme on purpose, but I think we're both getting at something you or someone else said about the root of the problem. The more we focus on hard lines and less we focus on why people want/need weapons, the more we will lose the issue. When people want to take even reasonable home defense weapons and draw lines around them (look at the D.C. case right now) then I get a little zealous, sorry.
It would be a great day when we wouldn't need our weapons to defend ourselves. Then we could all just be collectors and shooting enthusiasts.
-
This thread took a hard, but all too expected hard turn. What can you accomplish? No one is backing down.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
And the U.S. is heading the same way.
No, just Commiefornia is heading that way, the other 49 states are not overly infested with girlymen and liberals. :D
-
Dago quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
And the U.S. is heading the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, just Commiefornia is heading that way, the other 49 states are not overly infested with girlymen and liberals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Dago, The U.S. Government did nothing when an individual state passed laws that severely infringed on the Bill of Rights, as laid down in the U.S. Constitution.
Now, to me, that means one of two things: Either our government is too weak, or scared, to put a hand up to one single state; Or, They want that themselves, for the other 49.
-
Who decides who does and doesnt get a gun?
The individual themselves through their past actions mostly.
If you have a criminal record, you wont get one legally,if you have a psychiatric history, you wont get one legally.
If you are not a member of a shooting club, or do not have the written permission of a property owner to shoot on their land, you will not get a firearm legally.( if you yourself are a land owner, it's pretty much a given....farmers need guns.)
Pretty much, if you can show that you are responsible, not a criminal or insane, and have somewhere safe to use the firearm, you can get one without any drama.
If you have a lifelong paper trail of Ritalin prescriptions, a grevious bodily harm charge from that night you got realy wasted and fought with your girlfriend's ex, you live in a city and the only experience you have with weapons is playing Counter Strike, you may find it somewhat difficult to convince the licencing officer that your need/desire for a firearm is legitimate.
Same bloke without all the history and a letter from his mate who owns a thousand acres in the bush who wants to go on a hunting weekend would have very little problem.
Semi and full auto rifles were banned, yes, but can you give me an example of a situation were either of those would be the only suitable choice of weapon, a situation that cannot be dealt with equally as well with a bolt action or a lever action?
About the only one I can think of is a firefight against men armed with military weapons.
It's just like a drivers licence or car registration.....you have to show you are competant and can operate the equipment safely and effectively before they will let you drive around the streets, why should an object designed specifically to kill be any differant?
You have to register your car, why not your gun?
You need a licence and training to drive, why not to shoot?
Bottom line is, guns are NOT BANNED in Australia, if you need one, you can get one.
If you want one to threaten your drug dealer with, it may be a bit more difficult.
By the way, I am pro-gun, allways have been, I own several and have since I was 12, I have allso allways had a licence to own them, and have been trained in their safe and effective use.
I was overcompensated for the guns I had to hand in, and have never had, or even heard of anyone having the police or feds (Lazs' Alphabet Ninjas....love that term ) hassle them or search their home for illegal firearms.
As Fishu said, just because I think gun control is a good idea, doesnt make me anti-gun.
-
PS allways been curious...........why exactly is it possible to kill a zombie with a headshot? Arent they allready dead? What differance will a bit more of a hole make?
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
For the time period of 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.
The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:
VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND
Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%
Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%
Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%
Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%
Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%
Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%
Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%
New Zealand currently has a much lower homicide and violent crime incident rate per capita than Australia; it also has a much more relaxed firearm policy.
[/i]
Fair enough.
But I'm a bit confused....which one of those is a 300% increase?
Hell, add 'em all together and you still dont get 300%.
Looked like a good fact though, added much needed grunt to the whole argument, you know, shock and awe sort of stuff..... pity it's not true.
The most common form of violent crime here is commited with fists, feet and teeth, with the occasional knife, broken bottle, pool cue, cricket bat, big stick or fence pailing thrown in.
The reason for that is that the bad guys cant afford the extortionate price of illegal guns, and cant get their hands on the nice cheap legal ones.
A far more interesting and relevant statistic would be the number of violent crimes committed with a firearm....betya next weeks pay cheque that one has dropped.
I garuntee the statistics for violent crimes committed with a firearm of either semi-auto or full-auto configuration has dropped dramatically.
-
I think the 300% came from Victoria. They went from 6 firearm homicides to 19 or something. It was in that police officer's letter:
From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks,
I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)
Heh; the letter sounds much more sensational with a 300% figure rather than saying the killings went from 6 to 19 or whatever it was. I'd rather just accept that grabbing all the law abiding citizen's firearms resulted in a dramatic increase in crime and leave it at that...
-
fishu.. I find it funny that the people who think that the entire might of the US is incapable of winning a war against a few thousand terrorists with road bombs and ak's and RPG's think that the same army could beat 10-80 million armed citizens.
so what guns should I be allowed to own?
bluedog says that in australia.. I can own anything with a simple little test... someone simply decides if my "needs" are enough. If I get mugged or robbed on the street well... I will just have to suck it up tho cause.... no one needs to carry a concealed handgun.
he feels that "good" gun laws would be ones that removed 9 out of 10 of my firearms from my collection.
Guns like my WWII garand and kimber 1911....My .22 caliber target pistols (why that is I have no idea)
So what guns are the problem? What guns being removed from society will make everyone safer?
How will taking concealed carry holders off the street make people safer?
How many lives will be saved if every WWII garand was melted down?
Forget feelings... I ask fishu and bluedog what are "sensible gun laws" and what gun law has ever reduced crime?
And... what do you say to a person who wants to carry a firearm on the street but is denied and then is robbed, assaulted or worse? Tough? It is for the good? what good? what did the law accomplish?
Who will protect you if you won't protect yourself?
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
I thought gun control was hitting your target.
Gun control means using both hands
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fishu.. I find it funny that the people who think that the entire might of the US is incapable of winning a war against a few thousand terrorists with road bombs and ak's and RPG's think that the same army could beat 10-80 million armed citizens.
To think of it, Saddam didn't want the civilians to own weapons, but after the second gulf war everyone could get a weapon. Perhaps the most important factor here is that they have a working supply - They're supplied with weapons, ammunition, explosives and other usable material. Without a constant supply the resistance would've probably succumbed by now.
What good is a gun without ammo? What good is a gun that is lost to the occupation forces? In a prolonged conflict you need to get more of everything.
-
Fishu,
What you're getting at is T.E. Lawrence's principle that insurgency can only succeed with the active support of a sizable portion of the civilian population.
Unfortunately we didn't learn that from him in WWI, didn't learn from Ho in WWII (but did kind of in France), didn't learn from the bay of pigs, didn't learn from Ho again in Vietnam, didn't learn from the Russians in Afghanistan the first time.
Still aren't learning now.
Any insurgency needs ongoing support. Asymmetrical warfare requires a base, in this case not military but social, among the people.
Red Dawn is a great movie, but it's totally unrealistic, unless those kids were hopng back to town every two weeks for provisions, which they weren't.
Such is the importance of the Ho Chi Min trail, and why it was run through Cambodia.
The infrastructure for a revolution just doesn't exist in the US today, even if the political situation were so far gone that a revolution would be necessary. Thats probably a good thing, as the making of revolution truly is a messy business.
-
"occupation forces?", you mean the army of liberation (US/Britain) don't you?
-
I dont have to fully agree with the Australian gun laws and the way they came about to not be all that bothered by them.
Nothing I say here will make one bit of differance, that much is obvious, but consider this Aussie gun owner's point that the 'Australian gun ban' that seems to interest you guys so much, passed virtually unnoticed as far as how much differance it made to my and most other peoples ability to purchase and use firearms down here, nothing much has changed.
I can still buy guns and ammo, I can still go shooting when I want.
Where exactly am I being greatly inconvenianced?
If in fact guns had been banned down here and it was impossible to buy a legal weapon, then hell yeah I would be pissed off, but that just isnt what happened at all.
I have no wish to see US citizens lose their RKBA, or have it restricted.
I am not saying our sytem is better than yours.
All I am saying is stop using the 'OMG look what happened in Australia when they lost their guns....its horrible!!' argument, as it is complete and utter bull**** .
-
blue.. it may not be horrible to you but many people didn't want to give up their guns to be melted down... Many listen to people in the US talk about shooting this or that new semi auto or old military firearm and feel as tho they have been screwed.
It is about protecting the rights of the individual and in that respect.. the ausssie guns laws were an abomination... They were hysterical womanly crap to boot.
It changed the way I think about australians forever. I thought they were more like us than that. It seems that I was wrong and they are more like subjects of the queen and not individuals but... socialists.
And what of the women and older people and infirm? what if they get mugged when a handgun concealed on their person would have saved them? How do you justify that? how is that no big deal?
You can't get guns and ammo and shoot... you think you can but you can't. You are restricted in very serious ways. We can order thousands of rounds of cheap ought six or 223 ammo and plink away with semi autos. In most places we can carry a semi auto handgun on our person and protect ourselves.
criminals can't... it is against the law for them to do so. I would bet that there are more than a few law abiding citizens in your country who are now lawbreakers because of your assinine and immoral gun laws.
And... I think when you shoot a zombie in the head if causes some kind of short circuit. The zombies around here don't seem to be using their brain for any higher functions but they can work simple tools and even drive cars somewhat...
lazs
-
and.. so far as a revolution here... There would not have to be much support systems other than what is in place... If the government dared to use the military openly on the people it would cause a support stucture to be instantly in place.. not to mention that there would be mass desertions in the police and military.
The only way the government could pull it off would be to get the support of outsiders... say a buttload of blue helmets. That would get ugly too tho.
No matter what tho... it would be far better to be armed than to not be.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. so far as a revolution here... There would not have to be much support systems other than what is in place... If the government dared to use the military openly on the people it would cause a support stucture to be instantly in place.. not to mention that there would be mass desertions in the police and military.
The only way the government could pull it off would be to get the support of outsiders... say a buttload of blue helmets. That would get ugly too tho.
No matter what tho... it would be far better to be armed than to not be.
lazs
The day the US Government lets UN troops of any kind operate inside the US, is the day we should start shooting both.
-
I think they know that. they will have to disarm us long before that ever happens.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
PS allways been curious...........why exactly is it possible to kill a zombie with a headshot? Arent they allready dead? What differance will a bit more of a hole make?
The dead aren't a problem. Zombies are the undead. They can be created by aliens, meteors, plagues, entitlement programs, and biowarfare bugs. Completely disrupting their nervous system stops them. Headshots, decapitation, burning, electrocution, etc. are all effective.
-
large caliber rounds to the vitals or ones that hit bone can knock a zombie down tho and one laying around flopping around like a 190 being chased is not dangerous.. you can take your time and put a 22 in the brain pan.
most of the guns australia banned would work good on zombies.. especially the ones created by entitlement programs.
lazs
-
We will just have to cede Austrailia to the zombies. If we can keep them isolated there, the zombies can fight it out with the snakes, spiders and mice.
-
Originally posted by Dago
We will just have to cede Austrailia to the zombies. If we can keep them isolated there, the zombies can fight it out with the snakes, spiders and mice.
And we could tell when the zombies take over, how?
:p
-
Originally posted by Maverick
And we could tell when the zombies take over, how?
:p
Beer sales will drop off. :D
-
See Rule #5
-
bluedog, it is against the LAW to bring a gun on campus. It is also against the law to kill people. The shooter broke at least two laws, how many more laws would have stopped what happened?
criminals don't obey the law, thats why we call them criminals.
-
Bluedog, please do not try to use a tradegy that just ocurred as a tool for a political agenda. It is not appropriate. Thank you.
-
Ooops......sorry Skuzzy, I should have realised and refrained, it wont happen again.
-
Originally posted by john9001
bluedog, it is against the LAW to bring a gun on campus. It is also against the law to kill people. The shooter broke at least two laws, how many more laws would have stopped what happened?
criminals don't obey the law, thats why we call them criminals.
I dunno John, maybe one banning the manufacture of handguns might have some effect 50 years or so down the track, but short of that I have no idea what the answer to the problem is.
Clearly a problem does exist though.
-
Short of posting armed guards in every classroom, which would be vehemently opposed by many in our society, what other options are there?
Arm the teachers? Israel does it. Mass shootings in that country have been a very real possibility ever since it was created in 1948. Terrorists know that the teachers and all school personnel have military training in the use of weapons, and therefore there is scant hope of carrying out a mass public shooting of any kind.......so they strap explosives to their bodies and blow themselves up. The effect is the same.
But again, as Yeager pointed out in an earlier thread on this subject, I can't see the arming of teachers happening in this country.
Also, this is not the bloodiest mass murder of school children and teachers in the nation's history. Many years ago, a psychopath loaded up a truck with explosives and drove it to a school where he had had an altercation with the superintendent. He blew it up on the street next to the school and killed, if memory serves, around 90 people.
Nutcases will find a way. All we can do is take the appropriate counter-measures.
-
Originally posted by john9001
bluedog, it is against the LAW to bring a gun on campus. It is also against the law to kill people. The shooter broke at least two laws, how many more laws would have stopped what happened?
criminals don't obey the law, thats why we call them criminals.
You might find this interesting.
Last year
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
Some people question whether the university has the authority to ban the carrying of firearms. How about you?
By Kevin Miller
381-1676
BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.
University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.
Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
Most public colleges in Virginia ban or restrict guns on campus. But the root of that authority is murky, according to some observers.
Virginia law already prohibits students or visitors from carrying guns onto the grounds of public and private K-12 schools. The state also prohibits concealed weapons in courthouses, places of worship during a service, jails and on any private property where the owner has posted a "no guns" notice. State employees are barred from possessing guns while at work unless needed for their job.
But Virginia code is silent on guns and public colleges. And two bills seeking to give college governing boards the authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during this year's General Assembly session.
David Briggman, a resident of Keezletown in Rockingham County, has made it his personal mission to challenge state colleges' authority to enact tougher gun restrictions than the state.
Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU's policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.
"It's extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at ... whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they're not," Briggman said Tuesday.
Hincker, meanwhile, said it is not unusual for colleges to have more restrictive policies than the state. As an example, Hincker said certain chemicals and explosives that are legal on the outside are prohibited in the classroom or in dormitories for safety reasons.
"We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.
Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.
"The excellent reputation of Virginia's colleges and universities depends in part on the public's belief that they are sending their college-age children to safe environments," the policy paper reads.
At least one attorney who represents college students would like to see the concealed-carry permit issue clarified.
John Robertson, the Student Legal Services attorney at Tech, said he's heard differing interpretations of the policy at Tech. Robertson, whose position is funded through the Student Government Association's budget, does not represent students in disputes with the university but offers free legal advice and services to students on civil and criminal matters.
Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General's Office resolve the matter. As for a university's refusal to honor a concealed-carry permit, Robertson added: "I am dubious that one particular arm of the state can do so without a particular statute."
Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had "never been tested" and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.
"But we stand by the policy unequivocally," Hincker said............
-
As I believe this will be determined later on, it's not the ones who have a CCW permit that "create fear", it will be the ones who decide that they won't follow any laws and decide to kill wherever they want to. Going to a location where all weapons are banned merely provides a safer area for the killer to do their crime.
-
The sad thing about this tragedy, is that there will be alotta debating, alotta things said in Congress, with them ultimately hoping that this will just "fade away"....
The current makeup of our government,with congress being controlled by a Democratic majority, might wind up seeing Gun legislation in Virginia that makes California look like Arizona.
This is what They think will make our schools safer...
-
It has been known here for a very long time that the cities that are to be avoided the most are those where citizens can't have guns.
It seems pretty obvious that it is now a good idea to avoid schools where guns are banned.
Gun bans seem to attract the wolves. If I had a child murdered at that school who knew how to use a firearm and would have had one except for the ban on them... I would want someones head.
What gives us the right to disarm our people and allow this kind of slaughter?
The greater good?
lazs
-
lazs
the days of the wild wild west are over
if more ppl carried, there would be more instances of gun abuse. Maybe not the 30+ this tradegy has seen but the 1's and 2's would add up to more than the 30+ over time. Do you think only sane, stable ppl have permits?
-
Eagler, not counting the cost of the weapon, practice, or ammunition, it costs around $450 around here to get a permit. I don't think any unstable person is going to bother with spending that amount of money, nor are they going to sit through a minimum of 8 hours of class, never mind go to some government agency and wait in line for hours to get a permit. Currently, it appears that the percentage of legal CCW permit holders who have been found to have illegally used their weapons is minuscule, probably less than 0.0001% or so.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
lazs
the days of the wild wild west are over
if more ppl carried, there would be more instances of gun abuse. Maybe not the 30+ this tradegy has seen but the 1's and 2's would add up to more than the 30+ over time. Do you think only sane, stable ppl have permits?
For the most part only sane stable people have permits. That's what the FBI & state police background checks are for. Mix that with training & you have a stable, trained, armed defender. The person may not do any defending, they may flee or pull their weapon & freeze. But I'd rather take my chances in that scenario than a completely unarmed one, we've seen what happens in that situation.
On topic, that video was funny. I'm going to use a Sword, no reloading. The zombies will make easy targets.
-
Eagler,
It's not the ones that go through the training and other hoops to get a CCW that are the propblem. That has been shown in the states that have enacted CCW procedures. As always it's the ones, for whatever reason have no fear of the rule of law that decide to do this type of thing. If they are willing to break the law regarding murder they are willing to break any law and certainly not be bound by bothering to get the CCW.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
if more ppl carried, there would be more instances of gun abuse.
Come on Eagler.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
lazs
the days of the wild wild west are over
if more ppl carried, there would be more instances of gun abuse. Maybe not the 30+ this tradegy has seen but the 1's and 2's would add up to more than the 30+ over time. Do you think only sane, stable ppl have permits?
History has proven you wrong, even in your own state.
Florida issued "Do not retreat" laws. People said it was going to be the wild wild west again with guns shooting off at every corner on the streets.
Crime and gun violence has gone down.
-
"live by the sword, die by the sword"
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"live by the sword, die by the sword"
Heart disease out kills guns in America... what ...50 to 1?
Live by the cheese, die by the cheese.
"The great state of Vermont will not apologise for its cheese!"
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
I dunno John, maybe one banning the manufacture of handguns might have some effect 50 years or so down the track, but short of that I have no idea what the answer to the problem is.
Clearly a problem does exist though.
The only problem that exists is that life is messy, filled with risk, and wackos sometimes go wacko. You cannot eliminate danger, you cannot stop people from occasionally going wacko, and you cannot control what they do when they go wacko.
Rough math based on reports yesterday - ~20 notable school shootings in 40 years resulting in about 200 deaths and let's say another 200 injured. Surely this is a high estimate, but let's go with it. That's 10 shooting deaths per year in a country with about 50 million students in middle school, high school, and college (probably more). That's 10/50,000,000 * 12 years in school * 2 (I have two kids) = ~.0005% chance that one of my children will be killed or hurt in a school shooting incident.
It is not rational to think that any amount of gun control will reduce those odds in any observable way no matter how much time you give it.
BTW - using same math, and assuming a 9/11 scale event happened every year killing 3,000 people in a country with 300,000,000 people, that's .001% chance of me being killed by terrorists in any year as I live my daily life. Probably much less since I don't often travel to LA, NYC or Chicago. I'll take those odds. Repeal the patriot act.
Let us be free!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"live by the sword, die by the sword"
If you don't have a sword to defend yourself...virtually guaranteed to die to someone else's sword. Carry a sharper sword and know how to use it. Make the other bastage die by the sword first.
One thing that's been proven over the last 10,000 years or so is that mankind is a predatory animal, always seeking to dominate or eliminate competition. Whether it's with pointy sticks, handguns or nuclear weapons, it really doesn't matter.
The only time this doesn't work so well, is when the other side has the same firepower or intimidating force as the one contemplating aggression. It worked with MAD for years, and it certainly applies in the Virginia Tech incident. If one teacher or student in this kid's path had exercised their right to bear arms, lives could have been saved. One thing is VERY clear here:
Virginia Tech's policy to eliminate adult students' and teachers' rights to legally bear arms on school grounds didn't work. The kid ignored the rules and slaughtered people following this policy.
Happens over and over again even in countries which severely limit their citizen's ability to defend theirselves. Well...one might say happens especially there. People who follow the laws restricting defense become the victims, while criminals disregard those laws.
Sigh...one person legally armed when this nut started firing would have put him down like a mad dog.
-
*applause* Bravo Warspawn...Bravo.:aok
-
Go ahead and ban the use or carry of guns and the criminal will show you just how fast a knife will do the same rain of terror. I can draw a knife and hurt you more than a gun ever thought about. At 30' I can start at you with a knife and there is no way you can pull your gun fast enough to stop me. By the time you get your gun out I will have you on the ground and in a lot of pain or dead. yes there are some guys out there that might be able to draw and shoot in 30' but they practice all the time or have the gun out and see me driving my attack to them. I have worked in TDCJ fpr long enough to know that a knife if far more dedly than a gun.
And for the living dead I hope you have lots of ammo and a trusted rifel + pistol
RED:aok
-
Originally posted by red26
Go ahead and ban the use or carry of guns and the criminal will show you just how fast a knife will do the same rain of terror.
RED:aok
I would gather from this post that:
1) You might suffer from the illusion that banning the use or carry of guns would mean the criminals might stop carrying them too
:rofl
2) You really just wanted us to know you consider yourself a badass with a knife
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by red26
I can draw a knife and hurt you more than a gun ever thought about.
James Coburn, Magnificent 7
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
James Coburn, Magnificent 7
Yeah, I remember that! :D
-
He got a 32 gun in his pocket for fun
He got a razor in his shoe
And its bad, bad leroy brown
The baddest man in the whole damn town
Badder than old king kong
And meaner than a junkyard dog
:D
-
no Im not a badass with a knife All I know is what has been taught to me in the class room and what I have see in the Unit I worked in TDCJ. But im in no way a badass. I would rather shoot ya if I can knifes are too messy LOL
And the criminals will always have a gun the black market never closes. Just because we band guns dosent need anything RIGHT?
-
Originally posted by red26
no Im not a badass with a knife All I know is what has been taught to me in the class room and what I have see in the Unit I worked in TDCJ. But im in no way a badass. I would rather shoot ya if I can knifes are too messy LOL
And the criminals will always have a gun the black market never closes. Just because we band guns dosent need anything RIGHT?
I was the most accurate guy at work at throwing a knife, but I don't have a minute of training using one.
But then, I am also the most accurate guy at work shooting rubber bands. :D
-
Originally posted by Warspawn
For the time period of 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.
.
[/i]
Actually from 1995 - 2005 gun related crime in NSW fell 40% peaking in 1997, with incidents involving handguns falling 62%. Firearms and Violent crime in New South Wales (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98)
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21576049-2,00.html
In 1996, 33 per cent of the 325 homicides committed involved firearms.
Latest figures from the Australian Institute of Criminology show that in 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of 300 homicides involved firearms.
In the US in 2005, firearms were used to commit 68 per cent of the 14,860 homicides.
Originally posted by Warspawn
Happens over and over again even in countries which severely limit their citizen's ability to defend theirselves. Well...one might say happens especially there. People who follow the laws restricting defense become the victims, while criminals disregard those laws.
Sigh...one person legally armed when this nut started firing would have put him down like a mad dog.
Bluey's completely right when he says people are able to have firearms, including semi-automatic pistols if they wish.
I believe our laws are correct in trying to take the guns away from one nutbag, instead of trying to arm everyone
Tronsky
-
If 0.2% of the population is criminally insane and 80% of the population owns handguns, how many criminally insaned, armed persons there are walking the streets just as we speak? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
If 0.2% of the population is criminally insane and 80% of the population owns handguns, how many criminally insaned, armed persons there are walking the streets just as we speak? :rolleyes:
Well, there is lazs........... :D
-
so bluedog and trotsky... there are no gun laws in australia? I can get a permit to carry a handgun with no problem?
If the laws are no stricter than they are here then what were all those pictures of guns being forcefully taken from people and melted down? Was there no one who had a firearm taken away and melted who wanted to keep it except the insane and the criminal?
If your laws only apply to criminals or the insane then they are good laws. If they prevent a citizen from defending themselves then they are bad laws.
Knife vs gun... a person who is determined to kill you has the advantage. The person who is the weakest and/or slowest has the disadvantage.. for most people in most situations, the firearm is an equalizer.
everyone pretty much answered eagler... I thought he was kidding tho... I didn't realize that anyone was that missinformed these days.
I have no problem with passing gun laws or penalties that affect only criminals.
lazs
-
talking about the living dead, there are some things that you DON'T want to do. if a knife is all you have, start running. that is because its stupid to let a zombie into that critical zone we call your "personal space", for obvious reasons.
the other thing is, if you are playing whack a mole with a mob of zombies in the mall, DO NOT stop to take your blood pressure in one of those coin operated blood pressure testing chairs because the cuff will hold your arm, effectively restraining you and allowing the shufflers to enter your "personal space" as this film clip shows:
http://www.badmovies.org/multimedia/movies6/dawndead1.mpg
-
Originally posted by lazs2
everyone pretty much answered eagler... I thought he was kidding tho... I didn't realize that anyone was that missinformed these days.
lazs
When the day comes when we don't kill each other as animals and we live in peace as brothers, do you think everyone will have a gun or no one will?
I believe there will not be a need for guns.
More guns to me does not fix a gun control issue. As I stated before, it is not the wild wild west anymore. You guys are just prolonging the status quo with your "pry my cold dead fingers from my gun" mentality.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
When the day comes when we don't kill each other as animals and we live in peace as brothers, do you think everyone will have a gun or no one will?
Which day is this? I'll mark my calendar.
I'm assuming on that day we'll have also done away with violent crime in general and shut down the black market... which means virtually everything is legal and there's no more poverty. All forms of mental illness should be cured at this point, and even though alcohol is legal, nobody at all drinks it...
...yeah I just don't see that happening.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I believe there will not be a need for guns.
More guns to me does not fix a gun control issue. As I stated before, it is not the wild wild west anymore. You guys are just prolonging the status quo with your "pry my cold dead fingers from my gun" mentality.
Eagler, you are more than welcome to keep on believing that, I'd hope you would realise that firearms in the hands of our people are something our founding fathers felt to be critical to the safety of a free society.
Guns are a part of our society. There are millions and millions of them out there. If overnight the government somehow managed to enact legislation banning them, I'd be willing to bet 50% - 70% of law abiding citizens would comply. I'd also bet that 100% of existing criminals would not.
Overnight, crime would be out of control in this country as the criminals finally get their greatest wish. A disarmed population.
As for the quote, "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand." I believe that around 10% - 20% of gun owners feel like this. It is estimated that 40% - 50% of the population owns a fire arm. With those numbers, even low balling, 14 million people in the country will refuse to give up fire arms and defend their Right to bear arms wit their life. What will the government do? Arm the rest of the citizenry?
The day the US enacts a gun ban, is the day the US will start a Second Civil War.
-
I've been watching the news this morning, and they keep going on about the kinds of stories he wrote, and how they were signs of how troubled and disturbed he was.
The kid wasn't right in the head, plain and simple, and nobody will know why he finally decided to do what he did.
I mean if you go by what people write, then stephen king, as well as george romero are about to flip out any day now.
Back to the subject.....
If there's a horde of zombies, a bazooka aimed low will take out there legs, or maybe even a cannon ball, then any caliber pistol can be used to finish them off with the brain shot.
-
Having just read the bios of the deceased at Virginia Tech and having read the thoughts of those left to live life in their tragic absence, I will say this: As someone who owns firearms and maintains/safeguards the family collection, and as someone who has enjoyed sport and target shooting my entire life and spent years reloading my own ammo, I am beginning to question my own beliefs regarding firearms rights, availability. Is there another way out of this cultural mess we seem to have evolved into. I do not have the answer but I know one thing for certain, our society, our collective being, is not well. There is a severe sickness that lingers just underneath the surface, it permeates our combined lives.
I dont have much faith that it can be healed. I fear we are headed for a fall, if not already falling.
-
Well as we have gladly accepted a few minor restrictions on out rights in these "post 9/11" times, it may be time to require psychological exam of all current and future handgun owners.
It shouldn't add that much to the cost of ownership/purchase and lets face it in these "post VM" times we are in a war with mass shootings.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Is there another way out of this cultural mess we seem to have evolved into. I do not have the answer but I know one thing for certain, our society, our collective being, is not well. There is a severe sickness that lingers just underneath the surface, it permeates our combined lives.
I dont have much faith that it can be healed. I fear we are headed for a fall, if not already falling.
because of one nut, you condem 300 million people?
-
one nut? you think mass murder/suicide by gun has occured only once?
mass murder/suicide by gun will continue to occur and it will intensify as time passes.
If you have a solution to the mass murder/suicide by gun phenomenon then please state it. I dont have a solution.
-
John,
That pretty much sums up the "anti" argument. Someone misbehaved to the many that have not and will not must lose their own rights.
We've already tried that great experiment with prohibition and saw what the results of that were. I suppose some time in the future we'll see it again. I hope it's after my time.
We have plenty who are deciding that rights are simply too dangerous to have. People abuse them, so in order to have a nice safe world we'll just have to do away with them. It's for your own good of course. I imagine the 2'nd amendment will be the first.
After that people will be saying inflammatory things which lead to disruptions in the public lifestyle. Speech will need to be limited along with peaceable assembly. Too many people in one area causing a ruckus just can't be allowed. They could get hurt so we must not allow that.
Once folks can't get together, a virtual assembly won't be allowed. Those nasty computers in the home allowing folks to look at all kinds of bad things. I mean, everyone KNOWS that rapists and perverts ALL look at pron on the internet, so in order to save the children and women in general we'll have to stop allowing people to access it except in controlled areas. People will be sharing those same inflammatory ideas that they are now prevented in discussing in public. Perhaps the internet should be limited to the Government agencies who have a real need for it. People really don't NEED the internet and the vast majority don't need anything but a word processor at home so a home computer won't be needed either. Something as simple as an old Radio Shack TRS-80 and a printer will be all a kid needs for homework. A restriction to an "online" encyclopedia, or library will suffice for basic research.
Since so many folks die on motorcycles we must stop the senseless slaughter on the roads. No one NEEDS a motorcycle other than possibly some government agency so we'll stop them from being manufactured and run on the roads. Since we're doing so much good we must also stop the waste of resources. Mass transit will replace private ownership of cars. Unless you can show an approved NEED for a mode of transportation like a farmer or someone involved in an approved job like trucking you don't need to have anything more than an electric car to commute to work or go to the store. By slowing the traffic down we'll stop the senseless slaughter on the roads from excessive speed. One or two manufacturers of an approved design of vehicle will be all that is needed. That will be even easier as there is no right to drive already. Simply remove all the licenses unless you can prove an approved reason to have it. Same for those cars and motorcycles. Just trace the registration and recycle the metal to mass transit. The oil crisis will disappear over night.
Soon there will be peace and quiet in the land. No one will be wasting resources to the planet will return to the pristine vision that gore intended outside his palace.
Think of all the lives that will be saved.
Yep you may think it's far fetched but why? Orwell had it right and we are going right down the path he saw. It's time to really get the space situation going and split the population away. It's way too crowded here now. :(
-
mav, try to keep it to under a 5 sentence paragraph. thats just too long to read.
-
Sorry your rights are too much for you to trouble to deal with. At least leave mine alone if you wish to abdicate yours.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Well as we have gladly accepted a few minor restrictions on out rights in these "post 9/11" times, it may be time to require psychological exam of all current and future handgun owners.
There are plenty of data to show that individuals with a certain genetic makeup are about 1000% as likely to commit these types of violent acts. And there's a simple test for that particular marker. Maybe those individuals should have to pass a higher threshold in order to purchase a gun?
-
thats better Mav, thanks. Is that your solution as well? I mean it does qualify as a solution but a very weak one as it offers nothing new. The problems of violence we experience as a culture just continue unabated.
-
Originally posted by myelo
There are plenty of data to show that individuals with a certain genetic makeup are about 1000% as likely to commit these types of violent acts. And there's a simple test for that particular marker. Maybe those individuals should have to pass a higher threshold in order to purchase a gun?
There ya go!!!,at one time people with certain skull shapes and bumps on the skull were shown to have proclivity for criminal behavior, now we're getting someplace.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Guns are a part of our society. There are millions and millions of them out there. If overnight the government somehow managed to enact legislation banning them, I'd be willing to bet 50% - 70% of law abiding citizens would comply. I'd also bet that 100% of existing criminals would not.
I'd take that bet in a heart beat. I'd be surprised if 10% of gun owners gave up their guns.
-
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security and shall lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
That quote in a nutshell proves to me that our founding fathers knew much more than the politicians who inhabit Washington today.
Giving up any rights we are guranteed as free people is not an option. It only ensures that tyranny will once again return to this land. I will not sit idly by and allow the actions of isolated nut jobs to affect my freedoms as guaranteed to me by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is sad that people died Monday. Even more sad that it appears this individual has a past history of mental instability including stalking people.
The real problem in America today is accountability.
Think about it. Kids act up in class or at home, and parents are told that it is normal and punishment is not allowed. Drug Dealers do minimal time in prison, yet cause massive amounts of strife in society with the poison they peddle, yet are allowed to walk free. Gang Bangers and other criminals all do minmal time, even repeat offenders. People run up massive credit card debt because of poor financial management and file for bankruptcy, effectively getting free from their financial hassles. An idividual not paying attention walks out into a street and gets hit by a car and sues the driver, winning millions.
This is not going to change until people have to face accountability for their actions.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi This is not going to change until people have to face accountability for their actions. [/B]
Bodhi, I agree with what you say regarding punishment. It's lacking. "Accountability" may not be the right word, or perhaps it's the perfect word.
Accountability to what is the problem. Without authoriative normative values, we're stuck with being held accountable to morals and ethics that at their core are expedient and false rather than principled and true.
-
The real problem in America today is accountability.
====
I believe people should have the liberty to live peaceful lives without fear of being murdered or without the need to arm themselves. Give people THAT liberty and you have a great country again! or at least something closer than what we have degenerated into.
Also, how does accountability keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people? I'll tell you how: By being accountable, gun sellers should be required to vouch for the mental stability of those people purcashing weapons from them. If they cannot vouch then they should not sell. Now "Thats" accountability! No?
-
Yeager,
Having a gun sales clerk or owner having to vouch for the stability of an individual is unrealistic and just another pandora's box of problems. My ex-wife was a PhD Psychologist. She used to see people that on some days were perfectly normal, on others, completely deranged. So, by that rule you propose, the day the individual is normal and buys a gun, and the next day isn't how is the seller to know. What do you propose to do with the millions of "unregistered" guns that are out there? Make people register them and take a psychiatric test?
As for accountability, I think it definitely could have helped in this case. Especially considering that the individual in question was implicated in stalking women. That in and of itself should have been a "warning sign" that the guy was losing it. Whose to say now though. Somewhere a ball was dropped, and that will be forthcoming sooner rather than later I suspect.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
The real problem in America today is accountability.
====
I believe people should have the liberty to live peaceful lives without fear of being murdered or without the need to arm themselves. Give people THAT liberty and you have a great country again! or at least something closer than what we have degenerated into.
Also, how does accountability keep firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people? I'll tell you how: By being accountable, gun sellers should be required to vouch for the mental stability of those people purcashing weapons from them. If they cannot vouch then they should not sell. Now "Thats" accountability! No?
Well said. By default nobody should have to get a gun because they feel threatened. That's freedom right there. Freedom to live without fear.
Freedom to live knowing your neighbour didn't need to get a weapon to protect himself. Makes it easyer to go and visit. :cool:
-
I agree Hap. The moral fiber of the country seems to slipping daily. Unfortunately there is no simple answer. We are not a religous nation, thankfully our founding fathers thought to add that after the fact. But, I do believe we take a lot (not all) of our core values in law from the Tem Commandments. Maybe it is time to have a dialogue in congress with regards to morality and law. Maybe it is time for us to build a thousand more prisons to house those that are not going to act with decency to society instead of releasing them into public to commit yet another crime. Maybe it is time that people in prison lived without cable TV, weight lifting equipment and are made to work while there. I do not have the answers, that needs to come from the people of this country.
What I do know though, is that I will not allow my 2nd Ammendment Right (nor anyother Right) to be trampled down to punish the few.
-
You are certainly free to give up any rights you choose to give up.
I'm sure you'll understand if I choose to keep all of mine.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You are certainly free to give up any rights you choose to give up.
I'm sure you'll understand if I choose to keep all of mine.
Well said.
Amen.
-
^ Seconded
-
Exactly what all are you willing to give up?
I can make a bomb with diesel fuel, kerosene, or other fuels combined with fertilizer. Gasoline and certain detergents can be used to make napalm like substances. Ball bearings can be used to make claymore type projectiles for home made bombs. Propane can also be used for a fuel-air type bomb.
So how many things that are weapons or can be made into weapons are you willing to surrender your rights to? What things are you willing to have your access to restricted?
Me? I'm old school, I'm not willing to give up any more rights. And I have a daughter in college (her boyfriend attended VA Tech for a couple of semesters) and a son in middle school. And my wife is an office manager.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
thats better Mav, thanks. Is that your solution as well? I mean it does qualify as a solution but a very weak one as it offers nothing new. The problems of violence we experience as a culture just continue unabated.
Yeager, that little blurb you liked was not a solution. Neither was what I posted earlier.
You are asking for a solution to a problem with people and population. IMO the root of this situation is we no longer raise children. They are just popped out of Mom and the "parents" expect the TV, internet and schools to raise their children for them. We license people to drive, operate machinery, practice professions yet anyone can have a kid and pretty much do as they please with it.
No one is responsible for their actions anymore. It's all just an "accident" to explain negligence or acts of ommisions. Throwing money at the problem is the "solution" most often employed by a court for civil actions. People are "insured" to prevent them from bearing responsibility for their actions and they seem to feel they deserve insurance from everything else.
Frankly, the solution you want is simple. Go live somewhere by yourself where there are no people. There you can be safe from people and never have to worry about being murdered, assaulted or have anything stolen from you. Until you do sometrhing like that you will always be subject to someone elses intrusion into your life.
Until then, like I said and like Toad said, you are free to abdicate any and all of YOUR rights you wish, but leave mine alone.
-
As for accountability, I think it definitely could have helped in this case. Especially considering that the individual in question was implicated in stalking women. That in and of itself should have been a "warning sign" that the guy was losing it.
====
There were all sorts of warnings that should have prevented this guy from legally buying a gun, but his individual "rights" were protected and 32 innocent people were slaughtered for it.
We gun owners are going to need to start being seriously proactive in creating a solution for this problem or the masses are going to cut our baby out of the constitution and you had better believe that.
So mav, you have no solution? or is rasing our children better what your getting at? As for me, I feel that more needs to be done to prevent unstable people from purchasing firearms.
Also need to seriously look at allowing certain pre screened people to carry weapons concealed in places where there is a desire to remain peaceful, like in schools. Or maybe just allow full concelaed carry in all places after stringent training and mental health evaulations have taken place for the carriers.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
There were all sorts of warnings that should have prevented this guy from legally buying a gun,
Maybe you could enlighten me on those warnings that should have legally prevented him buying a gun?
I'm awfully familiar with the Form 4473 but I've seen nothing so far that would have prevented his legal purchase of a firearm.
Clue me in, please.
-
Yeager,
I told you a solution for your problem. Perhaps you missed it. I'll repost it.
"Frankly, the solution you want is simple. Go live somewhere by yourself where there are no people. There you can be safe from people and never have to worry about being murdered, assaulted or have anything stolen from you. Until you do something like that you will always be subject to someone elses intrusion into your life."
This is a solution to the problem you said you have. I personally do not live in fear for my life or for my family so it's not a solution I need.
Having people around me is not something that makes me fearful for what they may do in any or all cases. I also won't impose on others a demand they surrender their rights to assuage a fear of mine. I object, quite vehemently, to others doing so to me.
As to the individuals writings being a problem. Now you are in the area of thought police. I suppose you would deny horror / crime authors their rights because they write about horrible things being done to people. Perhaps you would like the folks that wrote and produced films depecting murder to be locked up.
Under the current legal situation, thought is not against the law. Acting on some thoughts may be but only when you ACT on them. Until someone does somthing overtly criminal you cannot do something to them. It's that other pesky little right called innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Also need to seriously look at allowing certain pre screened people to carry weapons concealed in places where there is a desire to remain peaceful, like in schools. Or maybe just allow full concelaed carry in all places after stringent training and mental health evaulations have taken place for the carriers.
Try this. (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637) The conclusion is that, statistically, public shootings with several victims are a lot less frequent in states that have friendlier concealed carry laws.
-
BLACKSBURG, Va. (AP) - The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after his parents worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.
=====
This is all I need and theres plenty more. You want it?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070418/D8OJ2UOG0.html
Read the whole article if enlightenment is truly what you seek.
You genuinely support this guy being able to buy a gun legally?
mav suggested: Go live somewhere by yourself where there are no people.
====
Sorry mav, not doable, Im a people person. And I want a safe society or at least one that is not negligent towards its law abiding members. That cho guy should not have been able to buy a gun legally. Sorry, but keep trying, I do sense good intentions in your thinking.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Read the whole article if enlightenment is truly what you seek.
You genuinely support this guy being able to buy a gun legally?
He did not commit any crimes or commited any actions that would have indicated he would use a gun in criminal activity. Just because someone is a "scary" or they write disturbing plays, does not mean they are on the road to commiting an extremely violent act. Restricting a persons freedoms for a crime they "may" commit is not consistent with the principles of freedom.
I would agree with a restriction on selling firearms to a non-citizen though. As I see it, the constitution applies to US Citizens, not resident aliens.
Terror
-
He did not commit any crimes or commited any actions that would have indicated he would use a gun in criminal activity
====
yes terror, he was in perfectly fine shape to buy a gun wasn't he.
We will eventually lose the 2nd amendmant if we continue to accept these pathetic results.
-
I would definitely agree to a no purchase or ownership policy for all non-residents.
-
Yeag,
What do you propose is the trigger to deny a right?
To my knowledge this particular waste of oxygen had not been adjudicated as dangerous or a criminal. No conviction = no criminal record. No criminal record = no notice that he is unauthorized to purchase a weapon and the record check was done.
If you are suggesting that any mental health treatment is a basis for branding someone as unfit, please tell us what the treatment level will be the trigger. Does divorce counseling do it? How about a mental health check prior to court assigning child custody?
Now that you are second guessing the system you need to propose what to do. What is the "rational and simple test"? Next, how do you intend to implement it, nationally?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
He did not commit any crimes or commited any actions that would have indicated he would use a gun in criminal activity
====
yes terror, he was in perfectly fine shape to buy a gun wasn't he.
We will eventually lose the 2nd amendmant if we continue to accept these pathetic results.
Hind sight is easy to second guess. There has been no evidence presented that would have prevented him from legally purchasing. And I can see no way that anyone would have prevented him from purchasing.
He was "stalking" a couple girls.
He went to a mental facility to go over some "suicidal tendancies".
He wrote some "disturbing" papers in his english classes.
He "scared" some of his classmates.
He was never charged with a crime.
He was never adjudicated mentally unstable.
"Disturbing" papers are not that abnormal. See any horror film script.
"Scared" classmates... pretty hard to quantify...
It is extremely hard to stop an individual like this from commiting crimes like what happened at VT. A determined individual can do alot of damage if they have no fear of the consequences. And since there was no history of violent acts from this individual, how would the law predict he would plan and carry one out?
The Bill of Rights protects individual's rights, a determined individual can take advantage of those protections to commit all kinds of illegal activity. It's something that society has to be willing accept or, if society cannot accept it, individuals will have to be ready to forfeit some of those rights.
Terror
-
What do you propose is the trigger to deny a right?
====
Now THATS the kind of question Im asking for. At least in regards to firearms purcashing and ownership.
I do not know the answer but I would love to help determine one. Im tired of emotionally dusturbed people being able to do so much harm to others, let alone themselves. There needs to be built a process that has a good chance at intervention in these tragedies. Nothing is perfect and no one will ever be able to prevent criminal intent but we can better position ourselves to intervene. That cho guy had no business buying or even possessing a gun. He was ill. Everyone within his sphere of contact agrees he was not well. Yet his purchase was lawful. Thats a crime imo.
-
Stalking is far enough to raise a flag. Maybe not void eligibility by itself, but in general it should trigger further reviews; without a doubt in his case.
It's not "meangingless".
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Everyone within his sphere of contact agrees he was not well. Yet his purchase was lawful. Thats a crime imo.
So now before any purchase, anyone who is within a person's "sphere of contact" must be interviewed and a quantifiable and justifiable decision must be made about whether to restrict a person's rights or not.
[Sarcasm]Sounds like an straight forward and achievable goal to me. Lets start calling every applicants teachers, professors, friends, enemies, acquaintences and ask whether the applicantl should be allowed to purchase a firearm.[/Sarcasm]
I agree that it was a mistake to sell this guy a firearm, but in hind-sight. I don't know if I would have refused him the firearm at the point of sale...
Terror
-
There's something that does prove Bodhi's argument 100% correct.
Both the VT shooting, and Columbine, were done by students at those schools.
Those students were also products of our current educational system, In which there is no corporal punishment.
That Students behaving suspicously or in a so-called "dark" manner aren't doing something wrong...They are just "expressing" themselves.
In this, It's not a gun that's to blame for the VT shooting, or Colombine...It's that we as a society, have become afraid to just spank our damn kids.
-
Before this gets heated I have some questions.
There has been an allegation of stalking. Does anyone know if a report was filed and was there any interest in prosecution? Was there an arrest?
Secondly, in regards to the mental health allegations.
Has anyone seen any report that he was admitted to a mental health institution involuntarily? Does anyone have any information regarding any findings that he was a danger to himself or others as a result of the evaluation?
I ask these questions as they are directly pertinent to the situation that Yeager has brought forward and his suggestion that this individual was a known problem.
-
Gun control: All 15 in the X-ring.:aok
-
Heres a abc newsflash mav
The fact that this guy was lawfully able to buy a firearm resulted in the deaths of 32 innocent people. This is really pretty heavy stuff.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278
-
Mav, Yes there is allegations of stalking and an admittance for psych eval.
from here:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/18/vtech.shooting/index.html
"CNN also learned Wednesday that in 2005 Cho was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice, who declared he was "an imminent danger" to himself, a court document states.
A temporary detention order from General District Court in the commonwealth of Virginia said Cho "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness."
A box indicating that the subject "Presents an imminent danger to others as a result of mental illness" was not checked.
In another part of the form, Cho was described as "mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment."
A handwritten section of the form describes Cho. "Affect is flat and mood is depressed," said the order, which was signed December 14 by Special Justice Paul M. Barnett. "He denies suicidal ideation. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."
Barnett would not discuss Cho's case with CNN."
-
Based on that report, the court order should have been sufficient to have had him flagged and his purchase denied on the records check. It sounds like either the court did not follow through on the order and listing in local records or someone simply dropped the ball. That should have been in the system from early 06 if not december 05.
The system seems to have failed in this case.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Based on that report, the court order should have been sufficient to have had him flagged and his purchase denied on the records check. It sounds like either the court did not follow through on the order and listing in local records or someone simply dropped the ball. That should have been in the system from early 06 if not december 05.
The system seems to have failed in this case.
I agree. I had not read this about the case. If he was adjudicated mentally unstable by a judge and that was not in the system for the background check to flag, then the system failed. The failure needs to be investigated and rectified as soon as possible. An individual that has been declared "dangerous to himself" should not be sold a firearm.
Terror
-
it appears that this person was previously declared as "mentally ill". sorry for no linky. it will come soon enough.
-
All the psych and legal problems were very recent. They probably didn't have time to make it on the background check yet.
This guy was a nutbag and there is no way to prevent nutbags from happening. They will find a way to act out.
-
You can't legislate crazy...But you can get those declared mentally ill by a court or magistrate into a database that kicks them out on a background check.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by moot
Stalking is far enough to raise a flag. Maybe not void eligibility by itself, but in general it should trigger further reviews; without a doubt in his case.
It's not "meangingless".
He was accused of stalking, was he not? The woman declined to press charges. So are you guys saying that accusal alone is enough to deny a right? Accusal? That's all it takes? You can see where that leads, right?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
There has been an allegation of stalking. Does anyone know if a report was filed and was there any interest in prosecution? Was there an arrest?
[/b]
From NPR:
Campus police now say that Seung-Hui Cho — blamed for Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech — was accused of harrassing two female students in 2005. Neither woman pressed charges and he was not arrested.
From MTV.com
In the press conference held Wednesday morning, Flinchum said police received a call in November of 2005 from an unidentified female student who said she had received "annoying" phone calls and had had a personal run-in with Cho. Police investigated the incident and no charges were filed.
Weeks later, on December 13, 2005, Flinchum said VT police received another complaint after Cho instant-messaged another female student. Although he didn't threaten her, she spoke with police and asked that Cho not have any more contact with her. No charges were filed in that incident either.
Secondly, in regards to the mental health allegations.
[/b]
US News:
Despite being temporarily detained at a mental health facility in 2005, Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui's name was not added to the federal database meant to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining handguns because he was never formally committed to the facility, U.S. News's Will Sullivan has learned.
Yeager, which of these incidents, if any, would you extend to the entire populace as incidents that prevent the purchase of a firearm?
The system either failed because he was incorrectly not entered into the data base as a mentally ill person when he should have been or because the system does not recognize people like this as mentally ill, ie: the things he did failed to trigger inclusion in the database.
Allow me to posit another question: Had this sick jack donkey been denied the purchase of a firearm at a gun store, do you really think he would not have been able to buy the same or a quite similar firearm on the open market?
-
Toad,
You obviously understood why I asked the questions that I did. Wanting to have a system to fix things and knowing what it takes to even think of the ramifications is harder than wishing for it.
Given the news "system" we have in the country it's difficult to know which has the real story regarding the mental health eval. If indeed there was a court order and an adjudication (court finding) that he was diagnosed as mentally ill and a danger (no matter to whom) he should have been flagged and entered in the data base for a records check. That takes mere minutes and should have happened right after the finding. Like I said earlier it seems the system failed this guy and more importantly, his victims. The problem needs to be identified and fixed.
-
Yeager, which of these incidents, if any, would you extend to the entire populace as incidents that prevent the purchase of a firearm?
====
Toad I dont know for sure but I would rather that you, I and the NRA take control the flow of the discussion thats happening all over the country today rather than let boxer, schumer, kennedy and the other euro socialists control the flow. One thing I believe for sure, this mass murder shooting type of attack is going to happen again and again, and its going to get worse. If all the firearms community is going to do after every insane attack is recite phrases from the founding fathers then put bumper stickers on their cars then the average american will eventually band together and overrule the 2nd amendment as a nation.
We need to do more as a collective group of gun rights enthusiaist and activists to help determine how we can control firearm access to the mentally unstable and ill. People who are unstable and ill have no business accessing firearms. A way needs to be devised that at least makes it less likely to happen. We need to be pro-active in this regard.
-
all this talk about "gun checks" and "mental health" are moot, his parents live near DC, DC has a total gun ban so it should have a thriving black market trade in guns, no background check, just cash.
but for the gun banners in here, would it make you feel better if he blew up the building instead?
-
John, chill pill dude. calm down and discuss.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
A way needs to be devised that at least makes it less likely to happen. We need to be pro-active in this regard.
That way is already in place.
If he had been adjudicated mentally ill, the NICS system should have caught him.
There isn't going to be any method to "precog" crime, Tom Cruise's movie notwithstanding.
Check this list and tell me how many of the perps had been officially determined to be mentally ill prior to the killing? The fact that they did these things sort of proves they WERE mentally ill, but how many of them had been designated as mentally ill?
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
How many of them got their weapons in a legal fashion?
Basically, Yeag, any system you put in place will eventually either be circumvented by the perp or it will fail in some way.
Even the Englishman that killed at Dunblane had been pretty much singled out as a loon and a probable perv. Even the draconian English system failed there.
I'm sorry but it's going to keep happening and probably at a more frequent rate as we take each deranged perp and make a big media fuss over him, delving into his life from birth to the grave.
Grind 'em up for hog food, never publish their names or pictures. Erase them from history. Maybe, just maybe that might slow it down a bit. But no system devised is going to completely stop it.
-
I'm gonna add to what Toad posted. In the Package that he sent to NBC, The Gunman cited that the two in the Columbine shootings were "Martyrs."
IF that makes this a copycat crime, then we are gonna have to do something about the media as well...They are going to have to limit they're reporting to just basic facts in such cases.
-
4 Hours time and people are damn near throwing their rights away.
You give an inch, and they take a mile.
-
Tthe insane rage of that young South Korean, and the long-tern, premeditated planning that went into his attack, indicate that, even if the federal firearm's checking system had prevented him from purchasing his firearms, he would have found a way. He might have become a suicide bomber. In which case, the effects would have been the same.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Tthe insane rage of that young South Korean, and the long-tern, premeditated planning that went into his attack, indicate that, even if the federal firearm's checking system had prevented him from purchasing his firearms, he would have found a way. He might have become a suicide bomber. In which case, the effects would have been the same.
Regards, Shuckins
Or then again, he might have gone out on a stabbing rampage instead in which case he'd quickly be subdued by the campus security.
The easyer it is to get a weapon (no permits, applications etc.) the more likely an insane person is prone to obtain one in a spur of the moment. Then all it takes is the next flip of the switch..
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Or then again, he might have gone out on a stabbing rampage instead in which case he'd quickly be subdued by the campus security.
The easyer it is to get a weapon (no permits, applications etc.) the more likely an insane person is prone to obtain one in a spur of the moment. Then all it takes is the next flip of the switch..
The availability of weapons is only deterred by your imagination.
There are items out there that could possibly be far more deadly then a Gun.
September 11th.
-
Originally posted by Toad
He was accused of stalking, was he not? The woman declined to press charges. So are you guys saying that accusal alone is enough to deny a right? Accusal? That's all it takes? You can see where that leads, right?
Toad, I'm suggesting the same thing as Widewing. I didn't say he should be refused just for that one supposed stalking, but that it should be taken into context (especially with the rest of his rap sheet that existed already), hence the need for a closer review before a decision is taken.
Unless it's the case that evaluation for firearm ownership is an all or nothing threshold sort of thing, everything must be accounted for in context.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
The availability of weapons is only deterred by your imagination.
There are items out there that could possibly be far more deadly then a Gun.
September 11th.
Oh yeah, it's much easyer to hijack a plane (alone I might add) than to load up a handgun and go about on a rampage. :rolleyes:
If only imagination stops them, why are handguns, assault rifles and shotguns practically always used on murder rampages? Wouldn't it be much cooler to make bombs and big bangs instead of having to tap-tap everyone individually?
No, the gun is there, it's loaded and only waiting for the press of the trigger. So tempting, so shiny and cool. Doesn't that principal already look like a moving target to you?
That's what I thought.
-
A loaded gun makes a nobody a somebody in a split second.I'm glad to live in a country in which I do not feel the need to carry a weapon to feel safe.If gun ownership was legalised today I would definatlely feel less safe,as far as the US is concerned it is not my place to tell them what is good for them that is for the US to decide,and I think Gun ownership will continue for a long time to come.:O
-
MrRipley, guns are just an object. Before 9/11's planes were hijacked from their pilots, the hijackers didn't use guns, but fear and cardboard cutters.
Any average amount of brains can devise a way to kill, provided a minimum amount of resources, whether that's with psychology, household chemicals, gunpowder, or gallons of fertilizer, etc.
-
Originally posted by moot
MrRipley, guns are just an object. Before 9/11's planes were hijacked from their pilots, the hijackers didn't use guns, but fear and cardboard cutters.
Any average amount of brains can devise a way to kill, provided a minimum amount of resources, whether that's with psychology, household chemicals, gunpowder, or gallons of fertilizer, etc.
A gun is an object of destruction. It's an opportunity waiting to be taken. Or accident waiting to happen.
How many kids shot themselves with the parents guns, how many people flipped, pressed the trigger and regreted it for the rest of their lives.
It's a bad bad situation if you feel the need to own a gun for anything else than hobby shooting. A situation where I wouldn't want to be - bullets fly both ways too easy.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
A gun is an object of destruction. It's an opportunity waiting to be taken. Or accident waiting to happen.
How many kids shot themselves with the parents guns, how many people flipped, pressed the trigger and regreted it for the rest of their lives.
It's a bad bad situation if you feel the need to own a gun for anything else than hobby shooting. A situation where I wouldn't want to be - bullets fly both ways too easy.
A car is an object of potential destruction. It's an opportunity waiting to be taken. Or accident waiting to happen.
How many kids killed themselves with their parents cars, how many people flipped, pressed the gas pedal and regreted it for the rest of their lives.
It's a bad bad situation if you feel the need to own a car for anything else than hobby driving. A situation where I wouldn't want to be - cars kill both ways too easy
See how easy that was?
-
What Diablo said.
It's a bad bad situation if you feel the need to own a gun for anything else than hobby shooting. A situation where I wouldn't want to be
Says you :) .. That's a dark side of the moon fallacy. It's remedied easily enough (don't move to any such place), and doesn't adress the topic at hand: how to effectively solve criminals gun use.
I think that's the best thing this thread can discuss at the moment.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
A car is an object of potential destruction. It's an opportunity waiting to be taken. Or accident waiting to happen.
How many kids killed themselves with their parents cars, how many people flipped, pressed the gas pedal and regreted it for the rest of their lives.
It's a bad bad situation if you feel the need to own a car for anything else than hobby driving. A situation where I wouldn't want to be - cars kill both ways too easy
See how easy that was?
ROFL! How retarded argument. What other use do you see for a car, except for hurting someone? Now do the same thought on a gun.
See how easy that was?
I drive a car every day - I haven't touched a firearm in 5 years.
-
Easily two-thirds of the gun deaths in the U.S. are drug and gang related. Charon stated in an earlier post that gun-crime is relatively uncommon in the areas of the U.S. outside of the inner cities.
I don't know much about the gangs of Britain or Europe, but those of our country are becoming ultra-violent. This is the result of fights over turf and the emergence in recent decades of the "gangsta culture."
The glorification of this culture by gangsta rap and its fueling by drug money guarantees an unnaturally high homicide rate. Every feather-headed twit who buys drugs from a member of one of these gangs bears part of the responsibility for the violence that results.
What can be done about such a culture? Legalizing certain "recreational drugs" might help to dry up its money supply, but such a culture is driven as much by testosterone and image as it is by money.
Ban hate-filled, authority defying "gangsta rap?" Ain't gonna happen Magee. Try it and I guarantee you will be able to hear the screams of the civil libertarians from border to border.
Ban guns? Right. Punish the 99% of American firearms owners who do NOT break the law because of the depradations of the other 1%? Sure. But just TRY to take the gangstas guns. That ain't gonna happen either. Ban the manufacture of 9mms and large clips and it would still take three decades to dry up the domestic supply......and would do nothing to stop the gangsta culture from spending its drug profits on weapons illegally imported into the country.
Remember, it's all about image. They're gonna have them.
-
Education, Shuckins :)
If those gangsta guns aren't legal, they should be taken. Anything that deflates the pool of illegal guns in those circles will help.
MrRipley, yes, guns do harm. The reason they are a net positive is because they exchange at least one good for every harm.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
ROFL! How retarded argument. What other use do you see for a car, except for hurting someone? Now do the same thought on a gun.
See how easy that was?
I drive a car every day - I haven't touched a firearm in 5 years.
Nice arguement. Retarded? Maybe from someone who's myopic in thier views. It was a metaphor. Very simple really. A car has the same potential to kill as a gun does. And many more people are killed by irresponsible drivers than irresponsible gun owners. But then again drunk drivers don't make such big headlines now do they?
So pick yourself off the ROLF and think about it.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Nice arguement. Retarded? Maybe from someone who's myopic in thier views. It was a metaphor. Very simple really. A car has the same potential to kill as a gun does. And many more people are killed by irresponsible drivers than irresponsible gun owners. But then again drunk drivers don't make such big headlines now do they?
So pick yourself off the ROLF and think about it.
Au contraire back here drunk drivers do make headlines - we don't have murder rampages so frequent here. 10 years ago there was one, 3 people serial killer who went awol with a stolen assault rifle from the army. Back then recruits on watch duty had access to a rifle and bullets, accessible through breaking a glass window. Since then they've been removed for security hazards.
And what goes for a car having the same potential to kill - that's just plain wrong. When was the last time you saw someone murder 32 people by ramming them over with a car? When was the last time you drove into a building? :p
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Or then again, he might have gone out on a stabbing rampage instead in which case he'd quickly be subdued by the campus security.
The easyer it is to get a weapon (no permits, applications etc.) the more likely an insane person is prone to obtain one in a spur of the moment. Then all it takes is the next flip of the switch..
Spur of the moment? Get your facts right. He bought the 9mm Glock 19 5 WEEKS ago. Virginia has a "one gun a month" law. He planned this for some period of time, there was no spur of the moment rampage here. Not there, and not most of the other shooting rampages. These people plan these rampages, they don't happen on the spur of the moment.
What campus security? Campus security WAS NOT THERE.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Spur of the moment? Get your facts right. He bought the 9mm Glock 19 5 WEEKS ago. Virginia has a "one gun a month" law. He planned this for some period of time, there was no spur of the moment rampage here. Not there, and not most of the other shooting rampages. These people plan these rampages, they don't happen on the spur of the moment.
What campus security? Campus security WAS NOT THERE.
Ever heard of purchase impulse? If you can go and buy one just like that with zero background check, it's possible to just go and purchase a weapon with the sole intent of harming someone. Or contemplating the act.
Then once the gun sits there, it's just a matter of time when it gets pointed on people on a murderous spur. Murder impulse. They say the second and third one are easyer after the first kill.
Even if the campus security wasn't there, how many people he could have stabbed to death before them getting there - or more likely the crowd subduing him manually.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
If you can go and buy one just like that with zero background check,
You cannot buy from a dealer without filling out a form 4473 and being subjected to a NICS check.
Located at the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia, the NICS Section processes background checks for the FFLs in those states that have declined to serve as POCs for the NICS. The FFLs conducting business in these states will contact the NICS either by telephone, via one of two contracted call centers, or electronically by the NICS E-Check System via the Internet.
When contacting the NICS by telephone, the FFL will provide the prospective After contacting the NICS, via two contracted call centers, either by telephone or electronically by the NICS E-Check System via the Internet, FFLs will provide the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473, which is required by law to be completed and signed by every prospective firearm transferee.
The prospective firearm transferee's descriptive information is required descriptive , the FFL will receive a response that the transfer may proceed or is delayed. This response is typically provided within 30 seconds.
Obviously, the system is not perfect. This pile of pig dung passed the NICS check.
However, it is incorrect to say there is no check. Not everyone passes and I can say that as a person that uses the NICS system on a routine basis.
-
eagler said.... "When the day comes when we don't kill each other as animals and we live in peace as brothers, do you think everyone will have a gun or no one will?"
on that day.. if I am still alive.. lots of people will still have guns.. I enjoy shooting and reloading and working on them... if everyone is a hippy... what difference would it make if me an 80 million or so other firearms enthustiasts kept our guns?
lazs
-
also... what gun control law would have worked to avoid this incident?
Should we pass a law that all doctors turn their records over to a central federal agency? that all shrinks have open records? That no criminal charge ever be "sealed"?
Those are out choices...
yeager is interesting tho... his reaction is defensive... in a strange way... a few gun owners react the same... they see the only defense is to get on board with the gun control nuts and to appease them....
They figure if they can throw a small segment of the gun owners and citizens to the wolves... the wolves will be satisfied and never come after them... after all...
They are the "sensible" gun owners who would "discuss" the issue in a dispassionate way...
Yeager... I ask you to re exam your new found views in light of what I have said. You can't appease them. They are like a python... they just get a better grip when you exhale.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Ever heard of purchase impulse? If you can go and buy one just like that with zero background check, it's possible to just go and purchase a weapon with the sole intent of harming someone. Or contemplating the act.
First off lets stay out of the realm of hypothetical and just with the situation at hand. If you wnat to expand the "situation" to include everything that "coulda, woulda" you can go all the way to space aliens. Hardly realistic is it.
First off he bought a gun and DID have a background check. Hence the 1 month period that is there to allow a check and also prevent the "impulse" situation you allege which is not relevent to this case. As already has been stated the system failed on the background check. Where and how has not yet been determined.
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Then once the gun sits there, it's just a matter of time when it gets pointed on people on a murderous spur. Murder impulse. They say the second and third one are easyer after the first kill.
Really??? Can you prove that? Let me offer my own empiracal evidence here. I own and have owned several handguns, rifles and shotguns in my lifetime. I have used them for hunting, sport and self defense. Not once in the over 3 decades that I owned weapons has one of them EVER been pointed (by myself or itself) at another person on a "murderous spur". Neither have the firearms or myself had a "Murderous impulse". As to your premise that the second and third killing are easier, it sounds like you have a problem in getting along with people or are having some homicidal thoughts of your own. Have you checked into therapy yet? I don't know who "they" are that you refer to but if you hang around with murderers and are not a prison guard I'd say you are in need of serious help and certainly new friends.
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H] Even if the campus security wasn't there, how many people he could have stabbed to death before them getting there - or more likely the crowd subduing him manually.
That is really unknown at this point. His "rampage" could quite simply have taken a different angle and his victims could have been ambushed one at a time rather than the method he used. There is also no given that the folks he attacked WOULD fight back aggressively and offensively as they would have to in order to subdue him. Had he used an ambush style he could have killed for quite some time before being found out.
-
lazs,
Bottom line, mentally unstable/sick people should not be able to purchase firearms legally.
If you say here that you support the rampage shooters right to purchase his firearms because he was not breaking the law "at that time" you are not strengthening or supporting the 2nd amendment, you are weakening and diminishing it.
Mentally unstable/sick people should not be able to purchase firearms legally. mentally unstable/sick people are free to buy arms illegally, thats the way our system works, but they should not be able to buy them legally.
I have no doubt you will see Virginia strengthen its protections against mentally unstable/sick people from making lawful firearms purchases and even as likely see laws that prohibit mentally unstable/sick people from lawful ownership of firearms. As it should be.
Too bad 32 people had to die at the hands of a rampaging foaming at the mouth lunatic animal to set that work in motion. That monster had no business buying a firearm legally. No excuse of yours will cover it.
-
Really??? Can you prove that? Let me offer my own empiracal evidence here. I own and have owned several handguns, rifles and shotguns in my lifetime. I have used them for hunting, sport and self defense. Not once in the over 3 decades that I owned weapons has one of them EVER been pointed (by myself or itself) at another person on a "murderous spur". Neither have the firearms or myself had a "Murderous impulse". As to your premise that the second and third killing are easier, it sounds like you have a problem in getting along with people or are having some homicidal thoughts of your own. Have you checked into therapy yet? I don't know who "they" are that you refer to but if you hang around with murderers and are not a prison guard I'd say you are in need of serious help and certainly new friends.
Sure I can prove that, just watch the news. That's what happened. He had the gun and the opportunity - and mental defect. That's all it takes.
-
Yeager,
Virginia already HAS that protection. It didn't work in this case and no one yet has been able to show where the failure occured. Either the Court dropped the ball by not making the record in the data base, or didn't follow up to see if it was there. On the other hand if the person DOING the records check just decided they were too busy and said the idiot was clean instead of actually checking then that is the problem.
Right now no one knows where the breakdown was. So before you decide to impose more "safeguards", find out where the one in place failed or the new ones may fail in the same place.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Sure I can prove that, just watch the news. That's what happened. He had the gun and the opportunity - and mental defect. That's all it takes.
OK then. Post a link to any news story that says my guns or myself have done any of the things you allege WILL happen. Come on, I have a time basis of over 3 decades now so when is it going to happen?
-
Blame the media & video games, they played as big a part as the gun & the nut did.
Or on second thought; let's just place the blame where it belongs...squarely on the shoulders of the maniac.
I'm not sure why the media has to harp on this the way they are, it's as if all the rest of the world fell into a black hole & doesn't matter any longer. They just won't be happy until a copy cat shows up.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: Why have these crimes begun? Is it a coincidence that these mass murders that were for the sake of media headlines were committed after the gun banning liberals began to squawk about making guns illegal? I know people who think the proponents of gun banning here in the U.S. are behind these shootings. They think the liberals are seeking out these unstable people & instigating them to help their own cause.
The news media; are they responsible? They are harping on it to the point that I want to flip out & I'm stable & well adjusted.
Maybe we can blame the video games? Nah, if they were to blame we'd all be flying around shooting up each other.
When you get this many billions of people stacked on top of each other your bound to have the occasional nut snap here & there. We are just more susceptible here because of our open style of living. We could eradicate all this by turning our society into a copy of Saddam Hussein's or Adolph Hitlers but do we really want to give up that much personal freedom for a measure of security?
It's my opinion that the best defense from these problems are to let people defend themselves. I saw a woman the other day who was in the Luby's cafeteria when that massacre occurred & she said flat out - if she or any of the other victims had been armed she firmly believes that would have saved lives. From the horses mouth so to speak, many of the dead in that instance had weapons locked up in their vehicles because of the law - the same law the mass murderer broke without hesitation (imagine that)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
OK then. Post a link to any news story that says my guns or myself have done any of the things you allege WILL happen. Come on, I have a time basis of over 3 decades now so when is it going to happen?
I'm sure you wouldn't do anything bad with a nuclear bomb either. Surely everyone should have the right to own one. :D
-
Mav,
it was a legal purchase under "current" Virginia law.
-
Face it guys. Ripley is so caught up in the socialist paradise in Finland that he is never going to understand the US. So just let him believe what he wants. He lives in that utopia called Finland, we just can not compare to. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I'm sure you wouldn't do anything bad with a nuclear bomb either. Surely everyone should have the right to own one. :D
Stay on topic here. You made the allegation I'm waiting for you to prove it. Trying to dodge to an irrelevent situation is not answering the question.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Mav,
it was a legal purchase under "current" Virginia law.
Yes it was, and I'll state it again. The system HAS a check in it and Virginia participates in the system. He should have been flagged and the purchase denied.
Why he slipped through is the question to answer to find where it broke down and fix it so it does not happen again.
-
Yeager, you're offering sweeping generalizations and platitudes.
You are absolutely right; no one thinks the mentally ill/insane should have firearms.
However, you are a little short on detail. Just how do you determine who is mentally ill and who is not? What standards will you use and how will you ensure that no systemic breakdown occurs.
As Mav said upthread:
If you are suggesting that any mental health treatment is a basis for branding someone as unfit, please tell us what the treatment level will be the trigger. Does divorce counseling do it? How about a mental health check prior to court assigning child custody?
Now that you are second guessing the system you need to propose what to do. What is the "rational and simple test"? Next, how do you intend to implement it, nationally?
[/b]
You haven't answered those questions nor made any suggestions.
Further, did you take a look at the link I posted to previous world-wide school shootings? Which, if any, of those perps was known to the authorities as mentally ill? Which of those mentally ill obtained their weapons legally? Lastly, how would your proposed system have prevented any of those?
Ripley, the way you just presented it ALL guns are just waiting the spur of the moment killing and ALL will eventually be used that way.
It's pure BS. Only a tiny, tiny fraction of the guns in the US are misused. But you knew that.
We've all been over these points dozens of times, to no end and to no purpose. No opinions will be changed here.
-
Toad, Mav, and others; It's been mentioned that this kid had been in an institution, and that he had a couple of priors for 'Stalking' girls at VT.
True. But, I surmise that since he was not actually admitted to the hospital, and that no charges were pressed in the supposed stalkings, I would think it's safe to assume that this is why he wasn't flagged on the NICS.
A note at the hospital, and an incomplete police report (That doesn't result in a conviction) will still be documented...But won't actually be able to restrain his rights, if the authorities don't deem the situation serious.
Do you all wonder how many people like this are almost admitted, or booked???
If we looked at all of the 'almost' suicidals...We'd be looking at millions...
-
Frode, AFAIK he wasn't arrested for stalking; he was accused of it, the police talked to him about it but he was never charged or tried or anything else.
On the admission to the mental facility, I find the reports somewhat confusing. If he did appear before a judge and was found to be mentally ill, admitted to a facility and evaluated/recorded as being mentally ill.... how is it this info did not make it into the Criminal Justice Information System and thus be grounds for denial on a NICS background check? What happened here? Where was the disconnect?
-
Just how do you determine who is mentally ill and who is not?
====
Good question.
Also, I think because it was a voluntary admission for a mental evaluation that Virginia law did not require it be recorded for use in determining firearm ownership.
I suspect thats going to change, at least in Virginia.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I'm sure you wouldn't do anything bad with a nuclear bomb either. Surely everyone should have the right to own one. :D
You call someone else retarded and you bring up this tired BS?
It's ok freedom is to much for someone like you. I trust my fellow citizens with guns.
One bad apple does not make us all bad.
-
Srry, Toad. My understanding was that he only went to the hospital. That can be done voluntarily, or at a judges' referal. I hadn't seen where it had actually gone through a court at first. I just went back to the news story. It seems that an initial evaluation found him suicidal, and that the magistrate sent him to St. Albans. At St. Albans, they found him to not be suicidal, and his thought and judgments were normal. So, they just turned around and released him as an outpatient.
-
On a side "gun control" note, the media is actually putting the feet of some of the strongest antis to the fire. I am dumfounded. Now this is that smarmy Tucker Carlson, who has reengineered himself from neocon to "libertarian" in the past year or so, but still. The congressperson is the author of the latest assault weapons ban, and he pulls a Stephen Cobert on here, like when Stepehen asked the guy pushing the 10 Commandments legislation to actually list the 10 commandments. In this case, it's the evil "barrel shroud."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U#GU5U2spHI_4
Charon
-
yeager.. I agree with you that the insane should not be able to buy guns... or drive cars for that matter..
What I want to hear from you is how you stop that from happening. What is the cure? what law would you pass?
should shrinks have an open file policy? Should any accusation of insanity no matter from who made it be enough for you to lose a gun or a drivers licence?
What would you have us do?
lazs
-
To clean up Bagdhad, all we need is some bomb control legislation...
-
I would have a thorough process in place to evaluate and catagorize the mentally ill based on the degree and intensity of their illness. I would institutionalize any person found to be a remote or greater threat to themselves or others and have strict post institutional re-evaluations to determine either progress towards health or digression towards further mental deterioration. I would have a fair and just system of rehabilitation in place for those that could be made stable and safe. But I would also insist that thos most dangerous be removed from society completely.
The more I find out about those people who were lost at VT the more painful it is for me. This one event in particular should have been preempted, and I want to know that action is taking place to make it less likely in the future.
As gun enthusiasts, we need to become proactive in helping prevent mentally ill and unstable people from having any legal access to firearms and we should be very concerned for our own safety and the safety of our loved ones that the mentally ill are being segregated from us. For our own safety as well as theirs.
I will write some letters this weekend and send them off...
-
Sounds nice but I don't see how it could possibly work.
Are you going to evaluate every single citizen? If not you're going to miss a bunch of loonies.
The organization required to diagnose, treat, hospitalize and follow up on subjects would be huge. It'd be a governmental department the size of the Department of Defense.
Sorry, Yeager, it can't happen. The current system can't handle 1% of the loons out there and a new, huge system just won't happen.
Heck, most really good health insurance policies cover only a small percent of mental illness costs. Most people don't have good insurance.
-
You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......
In the meantime, go read up on these folks. Read every single one of them if you have the time. I have.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/virginiatech.shootings/victims/index.html
-
The Prez should enact a "war on guns" and congress can make it illegal to purchase them legally. That will solve our problems.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I would have a thorough process in place to evaluate and catagorize the mentally ill based on the degree and intensity of their illness. I would institutionalize any person found to be a remote or greater threat to themselves or others and have strict post institutional re-evaluations to determine either progress towards health or digression towards further mental deterioration. I would have a fair and just system of rehabilitation in place for those that could be made stable and safe. But I would also insist that thos most dangerous be removed from society completely.
In regards to removing the "most dangerous", you'll have a difficult time in identifying them much less in removing them with the ACLU who were instrumental in getting the courts to RELEASE folks held in mental institutions that were there without benefit of court orders bordering on convictions.
I had other questions for you but realize if I use more than 5 lines you will simply ignore it anyhow.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted,
Yet another unworkable solution Yeager and you knew that when you typed it. It's very easy to generalize but the devil is in the details as you've undoubtedly realized by now.
It's tough about those 33; sad they died to a pile of dung.
Too bad you can't come up with any sort of workable solution to the problem too. But it probably makes you feel better and more involved to generalize solutions. I guess.
Did you read up on all the previous school massacres and even try to determine how many might have been prevented by your generalizations? I'm betting you did not.
-
Ok, back on topic. This is why you should join the NRA today:
(caution vulgar language)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo0IeO5_AAk&mode=related&search=
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......
In the meantime, go read up on these folks. Read every single one of them if you have the time. I have.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/virginiatech.shootings/victims/index.html
In the end, a database of who, what, and where to find "you". And then we are back to 1935 having not learned from history: required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......
Yeager the better question to ask may be: As a society are we even capable of insuring each of us our own Liberty, Freedom and Life? Do we as a Nation have the guts to do it anymore? That is more germain to why that nutjob was able to perform his EVIL deed. We no longer understand that we can die each and every day at the hands of other people. Which means we don't understand our personal responsibility to protect our own lives. So now we die in droves in gun free zones because we live fantasy lives.
What you are suggesting is trading personal responsibility for the lie and fantasy of "PEACE". Peace is easy. Just do what the people with guns tell you to do. You may not die or you may die. But die you will in slavery either to the people with guns or to the fear of dieing to which "PEACE" at any cost is so seductive.
Your reflections on those 33 and your emotions are the real price each of us must come to terms with to have Liberty, Freedom. and our Lives. Some day it may not be this way. But now, can you live with the price? And if you can't, are you going to stand in the way of those who can like the Liberals around the world do to anyone who can?
-
Originally posted by VOR
The Prez should enact a "war on guns" and congress can make it illegal to purchase them legally. That will solve our problems.
VOR,
I hope that is sarcasm... With "Vote Libertarian" in your signature, I assume it is sarcasm, since Libertarians fully support the 2nd amendment.
From the Libertarian Gun Rights (http://www.lp.org/issues/gun-rights.shtml) page.
"Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties."
Just checking....
Terror
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You asked, I was simply putting fourth some thoughts. Every person wanting to purchase a firearm should be required to pass a mental health evaluation, and be required to take a training class in firearms safety, and be fingerprinted, but that would trample on all of our rights......
I have a Virginia CCW and I DID have to provide proof of firearms training and get finger printed in order to get it. I don't feel that violated my rights at all. As a law abiding citizen and those are the laws I followed them and got my permit.
However on the issue of having a mental health evaluation done, how are you going to do it? Have a standard set of questions to ask or are you going to let it be left up to some therapist? What if the therapist is part of the anti gun crowd? Anyone who goes to see that person for a gun permit will be rejected because of that persons personal feelings on the matter and then a law abiding citizen will not be able to EVER purchase a firearm because some therapist with an agenda said they are mentaly unstable or something. Yeah that tramples on my rights.
If it's a standard set of questions, well gee how hard is it to lie? You going to hook everyone up to a lie detector next?
The system isn't perfect and it NEVER will be, but to want to toss out a Constitutional RIGHT because every now and then someone goes off the deep end amounts to nothing more than stupidity.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
You call someone else retarded and you bring up this tired BS?
It's ok freedom is to much for someone like you. I trust my fellow citizens with guns.
One bad apple does not make us all bad.
Freedom is to much for you to handle it seems. I don't need a gun and this is the true freedom. I don't spend a minute a day thinking how to protect myself, my property or my house. Cuz I'm free from worrying about it.
Why? Partly because I don't have to worry about gun wielding drugged out unemployed scum. The government supports them enough to keep the trouble down - and only a small percentage of them even own guns because you need to see some trouble here to get one. It won't happen at a spur of the moment, in one day or filing a paper.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Freedom is to much for you to handle it seems. I don't need a gun and this is the true freedom.
Are you serious? Lol...the only reason you have any freedom is because someone picked up a gun and won it for you. The only reason you still have it is because someone else went and kept it for you.
I guess if the sheet hits the fan, you'll want someone else to pick up that same weapon and defend your freedom once again. Whether it's a riot that's threatening to burn down your house or business, a crackhead trying to jack your car, or a nation at war with ours.
Me? I'm a bit more proactive than that I guess. But I respect your right to stand down and let those a bit better armed and prepared than you continue to defend your freedom. If it ever comes down to someone knocking down your door where your family lives, or deciding to do violence where you work, I have little doubt you will have wished you had decided to be a bit more prepared and ready to act in defense of your 'true freedom'.
-
Yeager, who is going to pay for these psychiatric evaluations, who is going to do them, and how long is the wait going to be to have one?
Answers:
The gun owners would be forced to pay. Problem: The cost would be outrageous, because of the liability involved. Besides, I already have to pay $500+ for a decent gun, $200 for concealed carry class, $200 total to apply, around $100 for the permit itself, and another fee to renew. Any psychiatrist or psychologist willing to open themselves up to the liability involved is going to charge THOUSANDS of dollars.
No psychiatrist or psychologist is going to be willing to do those evaluations because the liability costs would be prohibitive. Problem: The first time a psychiatrist or psychologist "lets one slip through the cracks" they'll be sued for BILLIONS. Problem: To prevent "letting one slip through the cracks", NO ONE will pass the evaluation, the failure to pass rate will be 90% PLUS. Problem: Now honest sane citizens are prevented from owning a weapon and their rights under the 2nd Amendment violated, so the courts are flooded, and rightly so, with citizens suing to get their rights back.
The wait for evaluation would be an eternity. Problem: There aren't enough psychologists and psychiatrists to handle the work load, IF any of them were stupid enough to open themselves up to the liability of "letting one slip through the cracks". Problem: The wait for an evaluation would be eternal, preventing honest law abiding sane citizens from purchasing weapons.
Back to the drawing board Yeager, you ain't even close on this one.
The system needs to be improved, it failed. The two girls he "stalked" did not follow through and press charges. They couldn't be forced to, and rightly so. And since no charges were filed he was never tried and found guilty. That part worked. However, the "second offense" should have been a flag. That, combined with having been hospitalized for an evaluation and declared to be a hazard to himself, SHOULD have been enough for him to have been entered into the system as "adjudicated mentally defective", thereby preventing him from legally purchasing a firearm. HOWEVER, that likely would not have prevented him from either getting a firearm or firearms illegally, or making/purchasing some other weapon, possibly a homemade bomb.
-
It would be interesting if the psyciatric tests involved a search on BBS postings made by the applicants.
All those who have posted that nukes should be dropped on muslim countries and that illegals should be shot etc. wouldn't do so well on that test methinks.
-
has anyone here ever seen a shrink that they would consider to be sane?
zombies don't care in any case... rather have an aggressive guy with a gun beside me when the zombies are out than 10 curvals.
lazs
-
To heck with concealed carry; I think I'll just move to an open carry state. SD is a fully preempted open carry on foot and in vehicle. Plus, they have lots of pheasants.
Time to move!
-
I believe that in most cases, concealed carry is more effective.
lazs
-
Maybe so but in terms of governmental control, I'm thinking I like fully preempted open carry better. I don't need no steenkin' license.
-
Btw, clear your PM mailbox folders.. in, sent and delete. You're full up again.
-
I have a Virginia CCW and I DID have to provide proof of firearms training and get finger printed in order to get it. I don't feel that violated my rights at all. As a law abiding citizen and those are the laws I followed them and got my permit.
====
Perhaps the requirement to purchase/own a handgun should be that you NEED a CCW. Toad and Mav and you others, the only thing you are saying is that we are going to have to continue "biting the bullet" and having these slaughters of innocents to the "yet to be diagnosed" mentally ill who find it so damned easy to purchase a firearm legally and go wipe dozens of people off the map permanently.
Those 32 people died in what amounts to an involuntary affirmation of our right to keep and bear arms. In years past I would have resigningly agreed with this sentiment but I know and you know that there is a way out of this, none of us seem quite able to grasp it, but there is a way.
PS
Toad, no I didnt read it, can you summarize it?
Mav, I can typically go up to two ten line paragraphs. Study the way lazs communicates for best form.
PSS Need to come up with a way to eliminate these insane shootings guys or like I said upstream, the average american is going to yearn for a constitutional change and it will happen eventually.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
IToad and Mav and you others, the only thing you are saying is that we are going to have to continue "biting the bullet" and having these slaughters of innocents to the "yet to be diagnosed" mentally ill who find it so damned easy to purchase a firearm legally and go wipe dozens of people off the map permanently.
And you have yet to propose anything that is not simply impossible as a means of stopping these "yet to be diagnosed"mentally ill.
Yeager, you're wishing for pie in the sky. You are not considering the realistic limitations of life in the US. The problems have been pointed out to you, you just choose to ignore them.
Are you going to psychologically screen every single person, a multi hour appointment with a shrink? That's impossible.
Even if you did, someone would slip through the cracks. You know that.
You have no solution except wishing to do better.
-
Actually it seems like the current situation in the US calls for general arming of population. Things have gone out of hand and people have to fight fire with fire.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Prediction: 200+ posts on this thread.
Shack.
-
Yeager,
Who determines that "NEED" thing? Is it someone determining that another reall.y "needs" a firearm? That is called licensing and is contrary to the concept of a right. Rights are not granted on a "need" basis. Priveledges, like driving where a license is required, and can be revoked, are licensed by the state.
ripley, I 'm still waiting for you to back up your allegations.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Are you going to psychologically screen every single person, a multi hour appointment with a shrink? That's impossible.
Even if you did, someone would slip through the cracks. You know that.
Indeed.
Just look at lazs as an example:
Former biker and meth dealer
Feels the need to avoid black people
Wants to take the vote away from women
I'd be facinated to hear what a shrink would say about him, his writings on this BBS and whether or not he should be "allowed" to own guns.
Then I'd be interested in what would happen if they tried and take 'em away from him.
...and in all honesty he is probably someone who SHOULD have the right to own his guns given his respect for them and his experience.
-
Just saw this article linked in Digg. It's about "Guntown USA", where a town required all households to be armed. Crime rate plunged and the population greatly increased. They compare it to a town where all guns were outlawed and crime rate increased.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55288)
Never understood why people are so willing to give up their rights to defend themselves and their families...
-
Blast, ya beat me to it. I was coming here with the same link. Fantastic stuff.
Great side effect of requiring gun ownership: Felons can't buy guns, so... they don't move to your town. Voilla!
-
Yep, interesting article. BTW, the Digg site also has some good arguments about the subject from viewers:
http://digg.com/politics/25_years_murder_free_in_Gun_Town_USA (http://digg.com/politics/25_years_murder_free_in_Gun_Town_USA)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Yeager,
Who determines that "NEED" thing? Is it someone determining that another reall.y "needs" a firearm? That is called licensing and is contrary to the concept of a right. Rights are not granted on a "need" basis. Priveledges, like driving where a license is required, and can be revoked, are licensed by the state.
ripley, I 'm still waiting for you to back up your allegations.
What allegiations? It's a clear statistic. Compare the amount of armed crime in your country to another with strict gun laws.
-
You have no solution except wishing to do better.
====
and you as well, except I dont get any of the "wishing to do better" part from you. Your going to accept mass murder as a means to an end to preserve your rights. It must be tolerated is all I sense that your implying.
Is that your position?
Bear in mind that the status of our rights can be changed by a constitutional convention, and thats what will eventually end up happening if we gun rights advocates continue to sit on our hands and insist that nothing must be changed, that nothing can be changed which would appear to be your position. But its no longer mine. Im not going to continue with that mind set.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I have a Virginia CCW and I DID have to provide proof of firearms training and get finger printed in order to get it. I don't feel that violated my rights at all. As a law abiding citizen and those are the laws I followed them and got my permit.
====
Perhaps the requirement to purchase/own a handgun should be that you NEED a CCW. Toad and Mav and you others, the only thing you are saying is that we are going to have to continue "biting the bullet" and having these slaughters of innocents to the "yet to be diagnosed" mentally ill who find it so damned easy to purchase a firearm legally and go wipe dozens of people off the map permanently.
OK but how about the states that don't have a CCW? I guess the people that live there don't get to buy a gun?
A CCW is nothing more than a permit to conceled carry, NOT own. It's just like you DO NOT need a drivers liscence to own a car, just to drive it. I don't need a CCW to own any of the weapons I have but I do need it if I want to carry one of my weapons.
The real tradgedy in all this is that those 32 people died because the college took away their RIGHT to provide for their own protection. It's already been reported that 3 of the victims had a valid Virginia CCW but because of campus rules they were not allowed to carry there. They followed those rules under the false assumption that the college would be able to provide for their personal protection.
Gun free zones do nothing but give the "yet to be diagnosed" mentaly unstable folks a target rich enviroment to do these types of things. ALL of the mass killings in the past 15 years, including 9/11, occured in "gun free" zones. Why do you think that is?
With ALL the gun laws in this country, and there are a ton of them, we don't need any new ones. How about enforcing the ones already on the books. Then come the arugment that "the current laws don't work". Well DUH!!! How many criminals do you know that obey the laws? That's why they are called criminals.
So, how do you prevent someone from buying a gun and doing something like this? Short answer is YOU CAN'T!!!!! The only option left is to allow the citizens of this country to maintain their Constitutional RIGHT to defend themselves. As an American citizen you have the CHOICE to accept the personal responsability to protect yourself and others or not to. Those 32 people were DENIDE that choice and they paid for it with their lives, so who is really to blame here?
I persoanly feel that anyone who promotes the banning of firearms in this country is an enemy of this country. I have sworn 3 different times to Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. With that in mind I will fight anything or anyone who tries to deprive myself and others of those rights. In this case that means the 2nd Amendment.
And before you ask, does that mean I'm willing to take a life and risk my own, bet your bellybutton it does. If your not willing to fight to protect yourself, and you rights, how can you call yourself an American?
-
Those 32 people were DENIDE that choice and they paid for it with their lives, so who is really to blame here?
====
Im sure there were those in that group who would have been able to defend themselves given the chance, but why must we live in a nation where we have to be armed at school? In the supermarket? at the library?
Man I dont like that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Those 32 people were DENIDE that choice and they paid for it with their lives, so who is really to blame here?
====
Im sure there were those in that group who would have been able to defend themselves given the chance, but why must we live in a nation where we have to be armed at school? In the supermarket? at the library?
Man I dont like that.
What other option is there? Do you trust the Government THAT much that your willing to place your personal safety and liberty in their hands?
Yeah it sucks that stuff like this happens but how do you go about ENFORCING laws on people that don't care about the law? By depriving everyone else that does follow the law? That makes NO sense at all.
We do not live in a perfect country. Far from it, but the only way it will ever get any better is for the citizens of this country to stand up and take responsibilty for themselves. Too many people feel that this country OWES them something. That's a big pile of bull and you know it.
You want your freedom, then you have to be willing to accept the responsibilty that comes with it. Sometimes that might mean fighting for it, be it with a pen or the sword and not every enemy of this country is overseas, some of them are right here in your own backyard.
You have to be ready to defend your freedom anytime, anywhere, against any enemy. If your not, how can you truely be free?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
, that nothing can be changed which would appear to be your position. But its no longer mine. Im not going to continue with that mind set.
LOL!
You continue to miss the point.
I'm not against workable, reasonable, affordable ideas.
The point is that you are all fired up for change and can't begin to think of one that would be any of those things. let alone all of them.
C'mon... let's hear it. SURELY you have an idea? Something?
Haven't seen it so far but I'm ready to read it.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
What allegiations? It's a clear statistic. Compare the amount of armed crime in your country to another with strict gun laws.
You mean like Switzerland? Low crime, low murder rate.
They give out automatic weapons to their citizens.
-
the news reported that the killer went to a gun range to practice shooting his guns.
now why did he not go to that gun range to kill people?
answer-- the gun range is full of people with loaded guns that know how to use them.
he may have been crazy, but he wasn't stupid. Better to go to a "gun free zone" to kill people.
-
you are all fired up for change and can't begin to think of one that would be any of those things. let alone all of them.
C'mon... let's hear it. SURELY you have an idea? Something?
====
A four step process:
A) I suggest upgrading the current federal background check to the level of a government security clearance.
B) I suggest a federal mandate requiring a Mental Health Evaluation prior to any firearms purchase.
B) I suggest a requirment to pass a mandatory Frearms Safety Training course prior to any firearms purchase, after passing the mental health evaluation.
C) I suggest a requirment that a concealed carry permit be obtained after passing both the MHE and the FST before any purchase of a concealable firearm.
Now go ahead and shoot every one of these (pun intended) ideas down. They are no doubt unworkable in your opinion. Heck, maybe post some ideas of your own. Oh wait......there is no problem so why bother. The machinery is working just as it should.
Of course we could just arm everyone, no restrictions. None. I would support that.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
B) I suggest a federal mandate requiring a Mental Health Evaluation prior to any firearms purchase.
I suggested this a page or so back....but I was joking.
shamus
-
I'm not against workable, reasonable, affordable ideas.
====
what might these be?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
you are all fired up for change and can't begin to think of one that would be any of those things. let alone all of them.
C'mon... let's hear it. SURELY you have an idea? Something?
====
A four step process:
A) I suggest upgrading the current federal background check to the level of a government security clearance.
B) I suggest a federal mandate requiring a Mental Health Evaluation prior to any firearms purchase.
B) I suggest a requirment to pass a mandatory Frearms Safety Training course prior to any firearms purchase, after passing the mental health evaluation.
C) I suggest a requirment that a concealed carry permit be obtained after passing both the MHE and the FST before any purchase of a concealable firearm.
Now ahead and shoot every one of these (pun intended) ideas down. They are no doubt unworkable in your opinion. Heck, maybe posts some ideas of your own. Oh wait......there is no problem so why bother. The machinery is working just as it should.
A. Might be a good idea but who is going to pay for it and who is going to do it? I have a security clearance and it took months to complete the investigation and cost thousands of dollars in time and manpower. Do you propose this be done for EVERY firearms purchase or is it a one time deal? Since I already have a secuirty cleance for the military would I be required to have one done to purchase a civilian firearm?
B. Again who is going to do it and what is the format involved? Standard questions or is it going to be left up to the evaluator to make up whatever questions they want to ask that day? What is the legal liablity involved if someone "passes" the evaluation and 6 months later freaks out and goes on a killing spree? You just can't predict how people are going to act in the future. Also what if someone has been to counseling in the past for some issue or other but they are fine now. Do you hold that against them? Also what is the cost, and who pays for it? Are you suggesting that peoples health records be given over to the government? What do you think in my case? I went through a divorce, went to couseling because I was depressed and angry, and was taking anti depressants for about 6 months. I'm fine now but I was kinda rocky there for awhile so would that bare me from ever being able to purchase a gun in the future?
C. This one I agree with 100% I believe a firearms safety class should be required before anyone is allowed to purchase a weapon and I even know how this could be paid for. Cops teach the classes. The local police depts hold classes once a week and the cost should be say around $100 The officer teaching the class gets a 15% cut right off the top as incentive payment for teaching the class and the rest of the money goes into the depts budget for training cops, hiring new cops, whatever. The only exception for this class would be military or law enforcement weapons training. I mean really does a soilder that carries an M-16 all the time really need to go to a civilian class to learn proper firearms safety? No he doesn't.
D. I'm not so sure about. If I want to buy a pistol for target shooting and I have no intention of ever carrying the thing on my person why should I be required to have a CCW? A CCW isn't issued for an indvidual weapon. I own four handguns and I can carry any of them with my CCW. I didn't have to get a CCW, it was my choice. Some people might not want one. Plus even though I have a CCW that doesn't mean I'm required to carry all the time. I decide when and where I carry my weapons, not the state. Point being, a CCW is a personal choice if you wish to carry or not, it shouldn't be a requirement to own a handgun.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
you are all fired up for change and can't begin to think of one that would be any of those things. let alone all of them.
C'mon... let's hear it. SURELY you have an idea? Something?
====
A four step process:
A) I suggest upgrading the current federal background check to the level of a government security clearance.
B) I suggest a federal mandate requiring a Mental Health Evaluation prior to any firearms purchase.
B) I suggest a requirment to pass a mandatory Frearms Safety Training course prior to any firearms purchase, after passing the mental health evaluation.
C) I suggest a requirment that a concealed carry permit be obtained after passing both the MHE and the FST before any purchase of a concealable firearm.
Now go ahead and shoot every one of these (pun intended) ideas down. They are no doubt unworkable in your opinion. Heck, maybe post some ideas of your own. Oh wait......there is no problem so why bother. The machinery is working just as it should.
Of course we could just arm everyone, no restrictions. None. I would support that.
I don't have a problem with the ideas themselves... but I can afford it. I have no problem paying out of pocket for the exams, training, evaluations, etc...
Not everybody can do that though :( That creates a financial issue, making it class discrimination. Maybe if it was government subsudized... but really, could that ever happen in our political climate? Our government training civilian shooters? Well... maybe in some red states... but others, no way in hell.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
A) I suggest upgrading the current federal background check to the level of a government security clearance.
B) I suggest a federal mandate requiring a Mental Health Evaluation prior to any firearms purchase.
C) I suggest a requirment to pass a mandatory Frearms Safety Training course prior to any firearms purchase, after passing the mental health evaluation.
D) I suggest a requirment that a concealed carry permit be obtained after passing both the MHE and the FST before any purchase of a concealable firearm.
A) Which level of security clearance? A "lifestyle" background check? Which lifestyle is not acceptable to be a gun owner? Homosexuality? A Rights activist? An environmentalist? What would the rule be to determine who passes this check and who gets to make the judgement? How do you make it fair to all who apply?
B) How do you make an objective "Mental Health Evaluation"? I believe that this test would be purely subjective based upon the opinion of a "psychologist". Who gets to choose the psychologist that administers the evaluation? Is the psychologist responsible if a person commits a crime after being passed through an evaluation? The governement must provide the funds to pay for the evaluation also.
C) I can agree with this, but it must be government provided and be free to any individual that wants it. Passing the course must be standardized and include physical proficiency with a firearm. The government must provide the firearm and the ammunition to complete the course. Who pays for the government provided course and materials? Since owning a firearm is not a "priviledge" but a right, you cannot make someone pay to be able to exercise their rights. Plus the argument can be made that you are restricting firearm ownership to the "rich" and oppressing the poor.
D) So to buy a target pistol to shoot at the range once a year, I have to get a CCW? If this is the case, then the government must again finance and provide that training and materials to get the CCW.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Yeager
A four step process:
A) I suggest upgrading the current federal background check to the level of a government security clearance.
[/b]
You worked for Boeing; did they ever tell you what even a mere Top Secret investigation costs?
This one fails several tests: it's not workable because the FBI doesn't have the manpower and it takes over a year, it's not affordable because the per person cost is several thousand dollars. Those two factors make it fail the reasonable test as well.
B) I suggest a federal mandate requiring a Mental Health Evaluation prior to any firearms purchase.
[/b]
The problems with that one have already been pointed out in this thread, so I'll just clip them from Capt. Virgil Hilts points posted previously:
No psychiatrist or psychologist is going to be willing to do those evaluations because the liability costs would be prohibitive. Problem: The first time a psychiatrist or psychologist "lets one slip through the cracks" they'll be sued for BILLIONS. Problem: To prevent "letting one slip through the cracks", NO ONE will pass the evaluation, the failure to pass rate will be 90% PLUS. Problem: Now honest sane citizens are prevented from owning a weapon and their rights under the 2nd Amendment violated, so the courts are flooded, and rightly so, with citizens suing to get their rights back.
The wait for evaluation would be an eternity. Problem: There aren't enough psychologists and psychiatrists to handle the work load, IF any of them were stupid enough to open themselves up to the liability of "letting one slip through the cracks". Problem: The wait for an evaluation would be eternal, preventing honest law abiding sane citizens from purchasing weapons.
So again this suggestion is not workable, reasonable or affordable.
B) I suggest a requirment to pass a mandatory Frearms Safety Training course prior to any firearms purchase, after passing the mental health evaluation.
[/b]
This isn't a really big deal. It's already done for Hunter Safety and CC licensing. So it's workable, reasonable and basically affordable.
I do have one question though. Your concern is VT incidents. Just exactly how is Firearms Safety Training going to prevent any of this type of shooting? Obviously it won't have any effect whatsoever. You've just tossed this on out there to be tossing something out. It would have no bearing on firearm murders with the exception of possibly making the nutbags slightly MORE deadly.
C) I suggest a requirment that a concealed carry permit be obtained after passing both the MHE and the FST before any purchase of a concealable firearm.
[/b]
It could work and it might be affordable for some but not all. As to workable, just what would this accomplish?
Remember, the goal is to prevent VT incidents, murders, etc. So what will mandating CC do to achieve that goal? Again, it would do nothing.
So yeah, I think your list is just a Yeager feel good list to make you feel you've done something.
However, any rational evaluation of your suggestions leads inevitably to the conclusion that these things would not prevent what just happened.
The only possible exception to that is a mandated psychiatric eval for all gun purchases which is clearly an unworkable, unaffordable proposal for the reasons re-posted above.
And now... let me ask you this. IF you got everything in your wish list, would it prevent mass killings with illegally obtained weapons?
Columbine springs to mind... none of those guns were obtained legally.
So, what then eh?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I'm not against workable, reasonable, affordable ideas.
====
what might these be?
I don't have any that meet those criteria. Apparently neither do you.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I have a Virginia CCW and I DID have to provide proof of firearms training and get finger printed in order to get it. I don't feel that violated my rights at all. As a law abiding citizen and those are the laws I followed them and got my permit.
====
Perhaps the requirement to purchase/own a handgun should be that you NEED a CCW. Toad and Mav and you others, the only thing you are saying is that we are going to have to continue "biting the bullet" and having these slaughters of innocents to the "yet to be diagnosed" mentally ill who find it so damned easy to purchase a firearm legally and go wipe dozens of people off the map permanently.
Those 32 people died in what amounts to an involuntary affirmation of our right to keep and bear arms. In years past I would have resigningly agreed with this sentiment but I know and you know that there is a way out of this, none of us seem quite able to grasp it, but there is a way.
PS
Toad, no I didnt read it, can you summarize it?
Mav, I can typically go up to two ten line paragraphs. Study the way lazs communicates for best form.
PSS Need to come up with a way to eliminate these insane shootings guys or like I said upstream, the average american is going to yearn for a constitutional change and it will happen eventually.
So, you can't come up with solutions to the problems your solution creates. No surprise there, it's too much trouble and takes too long to read, I'm sure. Did you even READ the list of problems, or was the post too long for you to be "bothered with"? You know, it's REAL EASY for you to sit there and DEMAND people come up with solutions, when you can't be bothered with reading more than two lines in response.
If you wish to have an intelligent, constructive discussion, it cannot be done in two line sound bites. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner progress can be made.
-
Hey Toad, just call me Hilts, the whole name may take too long to read.:t
-
These allegations ripley. I'll post them again.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Then once the gun sits there, it's just a matter of time when it gets pointed on people on a murderous spur. Murder impulse. They say the second and third one are easyer after the first kill.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I already posted a reply to this but you never came back and answered it. I'm waiting for your proof of the inevitibility of your premise. I've got over 3 decades of emprical data to show it does not follow.
I'm also waiting for you to come back with your source on the second and third kill premise. Is this personal experiance talking here?
-
IIRC from my college psych classes there is no clear definition of "sane".
Given that situation how do you propose to define a "norm" and then a quantifiable duplicatable and most importantly unbiased method of determining the results of any psych exam?
Trying to make and then field a system for this is a real beeyotch isn't it Yeag.?
Rights are not granted by a "state" based on an evaluation or court decision. They are only denied, with cause, from a court decision / conviction based on law. Trivializing them only suborns the importance of them and starts a denial process. Once the right becomes something only granted on application it has stopped being a right and becomes a privilege granted at the state's pleasure.
-
it's REAL EASY for you to sit there and DEMAND people come up with solutions
====
calm down hilts. Im not DEMANDING anything, and if I were it would not be REAL EASY. We squared up on this now?
"I'm not against workable, reasonable, affordable ideas" - "I don't have any that meet those criteria."
====
Well there it is then.......
I know whats involved in a clearance and thats why I suggested it.
A mental health evaluation should be mandatory for firearms ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
A firearms safety class should be mandatory for firearms ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
A Permit for cencealed weapons should be mandatory for pistol ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
I dont see these as being cost prohibitive. We have wasted 300+ billion dollars in Iraq and its cost us over 3200 american lives. Weve got deep pockets apparently.
Thanks for the discussion, its resulted in some good thinking.
-
Rights are not granted by a "state" based on an evaluation or court decision. They are only denied, with cause, from a court decision / conviction based on law. Trivializing them only suborns the importance of them and starts a denial process. Once the right becomes something only granted on application it has stopped being a right and becomes a privilege granted at the state's pleasure.
====
Damn Mav. Thats good writing bro. I agree with it. Just be ready though, cause there is a tipping point headed our way. Too many sick people with guns, its going to get worse and the scale will tip against lawful ownership. I think so many gun owners are so entrenched in maintaining the status qou that they will eventually end up being lumped in with the whackjobs. Im just trying to think of a way to offest that tipping point.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
The last time that happened to me I just used my handy sword to dispatch the aggressor.
Firearms are really not needed.
shamus
I guess i could say what if he had a shotgun pointed at you and was intent on using it, your sword wouldnt do squat and i doubt youd be posting today, but i'm glad you fended him off
-
Guns dont kill people, its the person pulling the trigger. go ahead take guns away then what do we ban next ?
knifes,bats,icepicks,screwdrivers, sticks, bricks, forks, cars, trucks, the list can go on and on and on, if your really wanting to kill someone it doesnt really matter what you use if your that twisted to want to kill that person
-
Well, I suppose it would be possible to shovel the sand off all the beaches of California with tablespoons and haul it off to fill in Death Valley in little red Radio Flyer wagons too.
It wouldn't be reasonable, workable or affordable though and, despite your insistance, none of your ideas are either.
-
Oh, and you've yet to explain how your new system will prevent this from happening when some nutbag gets his gun outside of the system, IE: illegally.
If you had read that list of school killings I posted, I think you'll find that's how most of the nutbags get their weapons.
-
curval.. about half the things you say about me are true but... say they all were... What about me, in your opinion, would make me dangerous to be around with a firearm?
It is like the question of "what firearms would you allow me to have?"
What personality traits would be acceptable for a firearms owner to have? If he is murderous with a suicidal bent to boot... why give him a drivers licence? Won't he just turn the wheel a fraction and take out a whole family?
Cops are given extensive evaluations... they kill themselves and get divorced at a very high rate.
And... as some have pointed out.. If the rules are too strict the murderers will just use the gun illegaly or... use something else.
Some minor adjustments could be made but you will never get shrinks to open up their records or to agree on what traits make for a threat when coupled with a gun or a car or even fertilizer and diesel fuel.
lazs
-
and ripley... you dont need murder in your country.. your population is shrinking on its own.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval.. about half the things you say about me are true but... say they all were... What about me, in your opinion, would make me dangerous to be around with a firearm?
Nothing at all. But I'm not sure a psych would feel the same way.
I was just making the point that these evaluations would be totally subjective if put in place, particularly when dealing with whether or not a person being evaluated should be "allowed" to own or carry a gun.
The pychs would inevitably get it wrong in some cases...preventing say...YOU from getting a gun while allowing a mass murderer to have one.
-
You guys want to know what it all REALLY boils down to??
Many people have gone with the popular perception that guns are just evil. Nobody has any legit reason to own one and anyone who claims they do have a reason to own a gun is some nut job. Then you have the ever so popular "Guns are designed to kill people" That's my personal favorite by the way. Of course there is the, "Only the military and police should have guns."
OK lets establish some general facts here. Over 80 MILLION firearms are in the possesion of citizens in this country. Out of that 80 million, how many are used in a crime every year? I'll be generous here and call it 1% and that's high and everyone knows it. Now out of that 1% how many of those guns were purchased legally and then used to commit a violent crime? Again I'll be generous and say maybe 25%. The rest of those are commited by criminals in the first place that got their guns illegally. These criminals use fully automatic weapons that the law abiding public doesn't have access too, or are guns that they stole while commiting a previous crime, or bought from their gang banger buddy who stole it.
So if you follow me on this, most gun crimes are commited by criminals in the first place so any laws that are passed really don't matter to them at all, and then you have a small portion of crimes that are commited by someone who legally purchased a gun and then lost their mind and went nuts i.e. guy walks in on his wife and her lover and he blows them away. Then you have the occasional situation such as VT where someone was known to be a disturbed person and he fell through the cracks of the system and did what he did. And last but not least the occasional firearm accident where some kid gets a hold of dads pistol and either shoots himself or his friend, and that's such a small percentage of gun incidents it's really not even worth mentioning but for the bleeding heart liberals I'll include it.
So we have all these guns floating around in this country and yet for the most part they are owned by good upstanding law abiding citizens who keep them locked up in gun cabinets and safes. Everything is fine until, OH NO!!!!! Someone got shot today. The media likes to talk about the shooting and what kind of gun was used and then all the anti gun folks jump up and point at the incident and say "BAN THEM ALL!!!!" and if the public is lucky they get a 2 second blurb about the person that pulled the trigger and 9 times out of 10 that person has a criminal record a mile long. The media doesn't want you to know about that though. It doesn't matter that most gun crimes are commited by someone who has shown a long record of disregarding the law, they just want to show you that a gun killed someone.
OK be that as it may, how many people are killed or maimed on the roads every day in this country because some idiot was talking on his cell phone while driving and wasn't paying attention to what they were doing? Or they were putting on their makeup, or eating their lunch, or typing on their laptop, or watching their portable TV (yes I've seen that one). In this country you are at least 100 times more likely to get killed in a car accident than you are of getting shot by a gun.
How many people are killed or maimed every year by a doctor? More people than are killed by a gun.
The liberal anti gun crowd doesn't want to get rid of guns because they are bad. They want to get rid of guns because that is the only thing preventing them from taking over this country and then deciding what everyone can and can't do according to their theories of life.
The Second Ammendment was put there for a reason. The reason is this.
Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Plain and simple. This country was founded on the belief that the power of the government comes from the governed i.e. the people. An armed population retains the political power of the government, and the ablility to dispose of that government if it tries to remove the power from the people. Those in government "service" that would take away your right to own a gun will not stop there. Once the power to overthrow the government is removed, that government can do whatever it wants at that point with no fear of reprisal from the people. That is called a dictatorship folks.
Guns in our country is not the problem. The only reason this country was brought about was because the citizens had their guns and used them to throw off a dictorial government and establish the form of government we have now.
This country of ours is the ONLY government in the world where EVERY law abiding citizen has the RIGHT to own a firearm. The founding fathers knew then that it's the right of every citizen to retain and exercise the political power to keep the government in check. Freedom REQUIRES the citizens to exercise that power.
Those that want to take away that right do not believe that the average citizen has the ability nor the right to exercise political power.
For those that don't like guns, well you also have the RIGHT to not own one. It's your choice. You have the FREEDOM to decide on your own if you will own a gun or not. What the anti gun folks do not have the right to do however is dictate our rights to those of us that do own guns.
So......if a citizen of this county goes out and buys a gun, that citizen is exercising their rights under the Constitution and by doing so they are taking personal responsiblity to retain political power unto themselves and not rely on the government to protect them or take care of them. That is advanced citizenship and with it come a moral responsability to use that power correctly.
Now for the anti gun crowd, do you really think you have the right to deny me my rights because the media, and Hollywood like to talk about how evil guns are? Should I have to give up my rights because some criminal used a gun while commiting a crime? Well what about that same criminal that uses a car to flee from the police, causes an accident and kills someone with their car while they were braking the law? I say BAN ALL CARS!!!! We can go back to riding horses. Wouldn't bother me at all, I love horses. Sure would save alot of money for gas now wouldn't it?
So I tell you anti gunners this. Give up your vehicles and I'll give up my guns. Seems only fair since the soccer mom anti gun nuts are going to kill more people this year with their cars than us pro gun nuts will with our guns.
-
If you had read that list of school killings I posted, I think you'll find that's how most of the nutbags get their weapons.
====
Nutbags are the problem. I guess we just live with it and hope their bullets dont hit us or our wives and children, our loved ones.
Welcome to America, land of the nutbags armed to the teeth :D
-
I don't feel I live in a land of nutbags.
I think there's a very small percentage of them, incredibly small in fact.
In my entire life I've never been threatened by someone with a gun, although I've been threatened with bodily harm by people using other objects.
In my entire life, I've never threatened anyone else with a gun.
I guess perception is everything.
-
Have you never been in the presence of a genuine certified nutbag?
-
He probably doesn't live in commiefornia:D
-
Originally posted by 68ZooM
I guess i could say what if he had a shotgun pointed at you and was intent on using it, your sword wouldnt do squat and i doubt youd be posting today, but i'm glad you fended him off
Then I would have no other choice but to use my light saber and the force, and thank you for your concern.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Yeager
it's REAL EASY for you to sit there and DEMAND people come up with solutions
====
calm down hilts. Im not DEMANDING anything, and if I were it would not be REAL EASY. We squared up on this now?
"I'm not against workable, reasonable, affordable ideas" - "I don't have any that meet those criteria."
====
Well there it is then.......
I know whats involved in a clearance and thats why I suggested it.
A mental health evaluation should be mandatory for firearms ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
A firearms safety class should be mandatory for firearms ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
A Permit for cencealed weapons should be mandatory for pistol ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
I dont see these as being cost prohibitive. We have wasted 300+ billion dollars in Iraq and its cost us over 3200 american lives. Weve got deep pockets apparently.
Thanks for the discussion, its resulted in some good thinking.
Okay Skippy, I gave you a short, incomplete list of problems with your idea of having people certified mentally sound enough to own firearms. I have also provided a list of the failures of the system in the case of Cho, as have others. You have provided NOTHING in the way of solutions to the problems with your idea I pointed out, you merely sit there and say "It can be made to work and you (Toad, Mav, myself and others who have shown you why it won't work) know it". That's ALL you've got. Which amounts to NOTHING.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
it's REAL EASY for you to sit there and DEMAND people come up with solutions
====
calm down hilts. Im not DEMANDING anything, and if I were it would not be REAL EASY. We squared up on this now?
A mental health evaluation should be mandatory for firearms ownership and is possible. Sorry if you disagree.
Thanks for the discussion, its resulted in some good thinking.
Okay, to keep this short, where you MIGHT take the time to read it, I'll deal with the problems found in your assertion that is found in italics above. Here it is again, a few very short paragraphs, or single sentences:
Yeager, who is going to pay for these psychiatric evaluations, who is going to do them, and how long is the wait going to be to have one?
Answers:
The gun owners would be forced to pay. Problem: The cost would be outrageous, because of the liability involved. Besides, I already have to pay $500+ for a decent gun, $200 for concealed carry class, $200 total to apply, around $100 for the permit itself, and another fee to renew. Any psychiatrist or psychologist willing to open themselves up to the liability involved is going to charge THOUSANDS of dollars.
No psychiatrist or psychologist is going to be willing to do those evaluations because the liability costs would be prohibitive. Problem: The first time a psychiatrist or psychologist "lets one slip through the cracks" they'll be sued for BILLIONS. Problem: To prevent "letting one slip through the cracks", NO ONE will pass the evaluation, the failure to pass rate will be 90% PLUS. Problem: Now honest sane citizens are prevented from owning a weapon and their rights under the 2nd Amendment violated, so the courts are flooded, and rightly so, with citizens suing to get their rights back.
The wait for evaluation would be an eternity. Problem: There aren't enough psychologists and psychiatrists to handle the work load, IF any of them were stupid enough to open themselves up to the liability of "letting one slip through the cracks". Problem: The wait for an evaluation would be eternal, preventing honest law abiding sane citizens from purchasing weapons.
Okay, there it is again. Short and sweet. You say it can be done. I presented you a FEW of the problems with JUST the mental evaluation part of your solution. So, since you say it can be done, let's hear your solution to those problems, and then we'll move one.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Have you never been in the presence of a genuine certified nutbag?
I don't know.. does exchanging posts with some on this BBS count? :)
I've been in the presence of nutbags but none of them armed with firearms.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yeager
Have you never been in the presence of a genuine certified nutbag?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know.. does exchanging posts with some on this BBS count?
I've been in the presence of nutbags but none of them armed with firearms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pixel is mightier than the sword. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Have you never been in the presence of a genuine certified nutbag?
Yup I have and more than once. One of them was in the process of trying to kill me with his knife at the time I met him. My vest stopped the blade. They are out there, in more ways than one. Just a situation of life because not everyone is born "normal" whatever the hell THAT is.
Frankly life is not safe, never has been and likely never will. You can live in fear of everything or you can just live. No one is guaranteed a long, healthy or safe life.
-
You know what would be something interesting to have enacted?
A mandatory 2 year enlistment in the guard or reserves upon leaving classes in high school or college before entering the work force. During this time you would have training in weapons and have had a psych work up done.
Hmm...sounds almost like Starship Troopers; where in order to obtain full rights as a citizen, you would have had to participate in the defense of those rights...
Seems to work pretty well for lots of countries with citizen-soldiers, like Switzerland.
-
That would be pretty un-American of us.
It might produce a better product for the workforce, but we aren't really concerned with that as long as we can drink Budweiser and watch TV.
-
As a British citizen I am 50 times less likely to be a victim of Gun homicide,in 2004,their were nearley 11,000 homicides involving Guns in the US,according to the FBI.
Total number of victims from firearm incidents was 477,000 in 2005.16 children and teenagers are killed by Gun accidents in the US each day!Guns that are kept for self defence are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend,or a family member.Possessing a firearm increases the chance of suicide by five times.
surprisingly Guns in the US are used five times more often in self defence than for crime!
As a Brit I have never seen a hand Gun let alone heard one fired in anger,their is Gun crime here but mostley Gang related - they tend to shoot each other!
-
Britain is one of the highest crime rates of major countries. Whether it's with a baseball bat, a knife, or a rock; it's still rather violent when it hits your head. And guess what? You can't defend yourself with a legal firearm when a couple of brutes decide to stick you with an icepick.
Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.
The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.
Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."
Highlights of the study indicated that:
The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.
England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.
From worldnet daily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21902
The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and ripley... you dont need murder in your country.. your population is shrinking on its own.
lazs
If you'd know better you'd know that this is typical for any highly trained high tech society. Your country is also running fast out of caucasian occupants as lowly educated and often illegal immigrants outbreed you 10 to 1. Lowly educated high breeding mass = poverty, STD's rampant, drug problems, violent crime. Step by step your country is turning into Somalia with the top 1% living in ultimate luxury and 60% in grass huts.
We have steadily turned away the masses of immigration by using strict quotas. We have 90% less immigrants compared to Sweden and 95% less problems with tribe/gang related incidences. I think shrinking of the population is a good thing - as long as I can walk the streets safe at night without the fear of getting shanked by a gang consisting of unemployed piss-poor immigrants. Oh, I almost forgot even the immigrants here get the benefits of the social welfare so they don't need to get desperate and rob for food.
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Possessing a firearm increases the chance of suicide by five times.
And possession of rope increases suicide by six times!!:O
-
Total number of victims from firearm incidents was 477,000 in 2005.
As a Brit I have never seen a hand Gun let alone heard one fired in anger,their is Gun crime here but mostly Gang related - they tend to shoot each other!
Victims is a bit nebulous. There were about 10,000 firearm homicides that year in our population of 300 million. Are these killers the "average guy with a gun? No, not today and not historically:
Though only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. Juvenile crime records are generally unavailable, but to the extent they are, juvenile killers have crime careers as extensive or more than do adult killers -- and so do their victims. Typical findings of 19th and 20th Century homicide studies: "the great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more" as also did Savannah murderers and victims in both the 1890s and the 1990s; exclusive of all other crimes they had committed, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one prior drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug offenses;5 1960s-'70s Philadelphia "victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter."6
Typical of "acquaintance homicides" in general are: drug dealers killed by competitors or customers; gang members killed by members of the same or rival gangs; and women killed by brutal, predatory men. Studies analyzing "family homicides" demonstrate that these are not ordinary families; e.g., "intrafamily homicide is typically just one episode in a long standing syndrome of violence." -- "The overriding theme to emerge from these cases was that [domestic] partner homicide is most often the final outcome of chronic women battering."9
In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder -- for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.
http://hnn.us/articles/871.html
As is obvious, criminals do not obey laws like drug prohibition, and they are unlikely to obey any firearm prohibition, as England is currently realizing with an increase in violent crime and I even believe gun crime after the bans. But then there's the argument: The UK has so few firearm homicides compared to the US because of fewer guns! Well, the UK has long been a far different place demographically than the US, as has Europe in general, and organized gangland crime has always been different.
We have always had a violent, immigrant or minority driven inner-city crime problem. This is not a racist or xenophobic statement, just a look at cause and effect in how such people have traditionally been warehoused in the US whether that immigrant was from Ireland, Italy or South America or was an African American or Asian minority. The reasons are simple. They are typically outsiders from mainstream America due to language or prejudice, living in poverty. They are tightly knit "loyal" communities with their own rules and leadership. Various elements in these communities have sought to do what they could to achieve the "American Economic Dream" and that can involve organized crime and gangland activities easier than other options. Often, the communities support the criminals more than the police, and often with some justification.
You have not had this dynamic throughout Europe with many of the cultural issues related to religious differences etc. being smoothed over among people who, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same except for an accent or slightly different flavor of Christianity. There has also been more of an acceptance in the class-driven societies to the poor "knowing their place."
And, you cannot even begin to remotely compare the urbanization of the US with that of Europe. You simply lack the dense urban environments on the scale found in the US, as I've illustrated previously.
The US does have a problem -- it's inner city poverty and a war on drugs that creates, as with prohibition, a lucrative and violent black market drug trade. If you are not an active participant or wanna-bee in this drug trade, you by and large do not have any real, personal risk from firearms even if you live in one of these communities but are not a gangbanger yourself. And, in European urban communities where this model is starting to develop you do see a level of crime, including firearm crime in some cases, that is a match for the US experience. Similarly, outside of these urban areas in the US you see a firearm crime rate comprable to Canada. Welcome on board!
16 children and teenagers are killed by Gun accidents in the US each day!
We have a population of 300 million. Firearms are involved in 0.6% of accidental deaths nationally. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (39%), poisoning (18%), falls (16%), suffocation (5%), drowning (3%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (2%), environmental factors (1%), and bicycles and tricycles (1%). Among children: motor vehicles (45%), suffocation (18%), drowning (14%), fires (9%), bicycles and tricycles (2%), poisoning (2%), falls (2%), environmental factors (2%), and medical mistakes (1%).
And, it's not uncommon for "children" to include people under 24 years of age in such firearm statistics since the end typically justifies the means over at Brady. They get a pass from the media on statistics that the NRA would never get. The actual figure is closer to 9 per day, again, out of a population of 300 million with roughly 75 million firearm owners.
Guns that are kept for self defence are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a friend,or a family member.
These statistics are based only on reported incidents and typically ONLY where the criminal was killed. As you point out in contraditction to this: "surprisingly Guns in the US are used five times more often in self defence than for crime!" It is estimated that perhaps firearms are used to deter criminal activity long beore anything serious happens 2.5 million times per year.
These are the flawed "Kellerman studies." A researcher with a "conclusion" set from the start, peer reviewed by like-minded colleagues that overlooked a lot of poor methodology. "Kellermann's "22 times more likely" study suffers yet another flaw: only 14.2% of criminal gun-related homicides and assaults he surveyed involved guns kept in the homes where the crimes occurred. With a similar sloppiness in his "43 times more likely" study, suicides (never shown to correlate to gun ownership) accounted for the overwhelming majority of gun-related family member deaths he pretended to compare to defensive gun uses."
Possessing a firearm increases the chance of suicide by five times.
Really? Then why does the us rank lower in per capita suicide compared to many gun-free countries in Europe, and even Japan? Maybe people who are suicidal gun owners just choose the gun rather than stepping in front of a train.
As for nutters doing mass killings -- 90 -100 people die from lightning each year. Even in a bad year like tis one you are at far more risk outside on a rainy day. Or, at an enormously higher level from a preschool teacher driving home on the weekend after a few too many jello shots.
Charon
-
I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions ripley.
-
we are all waiting... curval has admitted that any evaluation would be subjective... we all know that shrinks get it wrong most of the time.
I asked curval what traits of mine would he consider enough to bar me from my human right to defend myself and others.
Everyone points to societies that are decaying and stagnant and say "see, we have a couple less homicides per hundred thousand population than you so that proves that a stagnant socialist country with strict laws and all one race is a good thing."
They call us biggots because we can't deal with the most diverse country on the planet that is also vibrant and full of opportunity..
We have half our hoimicides being committed by less than 20% of the population yet... we are the bigots?
Hell... no races in you-rup and they still have to be bigoted against other whites... anti semitism is rampant... poles russians jews whatever.. even lower class whites.. europe is nothing but biggots.
Why would I/we listen to dying societies? Maybe a vibrant society of individuals and diversity is doomed to a little more murder.. and that is all it is... a few more per hundred thousand mostly committed by the dregs of a vibrant society.
I don't see the problem. I don't see any solution to this hand wringing nothing of a problem unless it is to be like countries that are dying out.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we are all waiting... curval has admitted that any evaluation would be subjective... we all know that shrinks get it wrong most of the time.
I asked curval what traits of mine would he consider enough to bar me from my human right to defend myself and others.
Everyone points to societies that are decaying and stagnant and say "see, we have a couple less homicides per hundred thousand population than you so that proves that a stagnant socialist country with strict laws and all one race is a good thing."
They call us biggots because we can't deal with the most diverse country on the planet that is also vibrant and full of opportunity..
We have half our hoimicides being committed by less than 20% of the population yet... we are the bigots?
Hell... no races in you-rup and they still have to be bigoted against other whites... anti semitism is rampant... poles russians jews whatever.. even lower class whites.. europe is nothing but biggots.
Why would I/we listen to dying societies? Maybe a vibrant society of individuals and diversity is doomed to a little more murder.. and that is all it is... a few more per hundred thousand mostly committed by the dregs of a vibrant society.
I don't see the problem. I don't see any solution to this hand wringing nothing of a problem unless it is to be like countries that are dying out.
lazs
Well said. :aok
-
No country has a monopoly on bigots or is free from them. Neither does America or any country have a monopoly on nutjobs. Only today, my sister in law, who is a law lecturer told us about a student of hers who sounds spookily like Cho. Ironically he's an American citizen but Lebanese. He definitely has some kind of psychological problems and is clearly paranoid and has been referred for treatment.
On the face of it, he would seem like an ideal candidate for a rampage. But with one key difference. If he was so inclined he would have a lot more difficulty gets his hands on a couple of handguns in this country than he would in the USA.
That is the real differnce between Europe and America on this issue. Gun massacres are not exclusively an American phenomenon but like it or not America probably leads the world in this partcularly grim statistic.
The reason, quite simply is that it is a lot easier for nutjobs to obtain a gun or two then walk into a crowded area and kill people.
That, I'm afraid is the price Americans must pay for their freedom to bear arms. Whether you are pro or anti gun you can't escape that fact.
-
cpxx are you saying that without handguns this guy is not dangerous or couldn't kill 32 or... go for the record and make it 33 maybe!
It is an event here.. the news is acting like our killers are nothing until they break the record.. the hero that was shot protecting his students is not even mentioned compared to the nutjob.
god help us when they learn about poison and simple bomb making or skyjacking or just driving a truck through a schoolyard... all of those things have been done here and has similar or higher... much higher body counts.
-
I'm saying the weapon of choice for nutjobs is the gun. People will always take the line of least resistance. Bombs are hard to make, skyjacking difficult, knives relatively ineffective.
Above all none of these are as 'sexy' as guns. A lot of stuff is copycat too. The precedent has been set and these people feed off previous events. I'm not anti gun as I made clear more than once but I do believe the easy availability of guns makes massacres like this more common simply because they are available to the crazies.
That is not to say I believe in heavier gun control but the facts have to be faced. When guns are available people will misuse them.
So will stronger gun control stop this in future? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the genie is out of the bottle on this one. These gun massacres will continue and the same arguments will be played out again and again. In the long run, I think to the detriment of law abiding gun owners.
-
I'm saying the weapon of choice for nutjobs is the gun. People will always take the line of least resistance. Bombs are hard to make, skyjacking difficult, knives relatively ineffective.
No, it is not. Factually, the weapon of chice is arson. Gasoline and a match. Take the Happy Land Social Club killing of 1990 where 87 people died. Or the DuPont Plaza hotel fire in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1986 where 97 people died. And thes people burned or choked to death to boot.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/happyland/fuego_3.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_fire
All of the high profile shootings during this same period and since have yet to catch up to either of these events. And it's not like mutliple arson deaths on a lesser scale are rare. Arson deaths by the handful -- 3 here, 7 there, etc. -- happen all the time. Often, entire families get wiped out. We just had 11 arson deaths in two incidents in the past two weeks. In one case 5 children died, just like the Amish school shooting. Where was the 24 hour media coveage?
All this latest nutjob had to do was use those chains to lock the dorm room doors, get a five gallon can of gasoline, soak down a floor or two and light a match I bet the death toll would have passed 30 if he did so.
Charon
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I'm saying the weapon of choice for nutjobs is the gun. People will always take the line of least resistance.
You know of course, that this path of least resistance is often because the rest of the population has been disarmed, and the killer knows this?
He's the only one with a gun because of arbitrary suspension of constitutionally granted rights.
Originally posted by cpxxx
So will stronger gun control stop this in future? Maybe, but I doubt it. I think the genie is out of the bottle on this one. These gun massacres will continue and the same arguments will be played out again and again.
You know where it won't happen? It won't happen where someone is armed legally and defends themselves when a nutjob starts walking around shooting people. It will however, happen when there are helpless victims available who have no means of defending themselves. How many times does it have to be shown that if you give people the means to defend themselves, then suddenly they are no longer victims to be preyed upon, but rather active participants in the defense of themselves and their loved ones.
Ask yourself honestly when this man breaks in to your home...how would you like to be prepared?
-------
Police Search for Serial Child Rapist
Filed under: sexual assault, child molestation, home invasion, rape, child abuse, crime, Arizona, News — readthis @ 9:41 am 1 Apr 2007
Police are searching for a serial child rapist. He finds a single-parent home, then breaks in and rapes the daughter after subduing the parent. He has raped two 13-year-olds and a 14-year-old in the past three months. A sketch of the suspect is below. He speaks with a Spanish accent.
(http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/542/serialchildrapistsmallrl1.jpg)
============
Or how about these winners:
(http://65.202.67.195/Articles/articlefiles/11912-mug_070402_ortiz.jpg)(http://65.202.67.195/Articles/articlefiles/11929-MUG_070403_sihr.jpg)
PORT CHARLOTTE -- Kaley Kendrick, 17, hid in her mother's closet when two men broke into her home, killed her mother and pumped several bullets into Kaley's boyfriend, according to court records.
Kaley told deputies that the men demanded money and drugs, and her mother told them to take anything they wanted from the Inverness Street house.
They took her mother's life Sunday afternoon with a gunshot to the head. Lisa Marie Kendrick, 41, was found dead, lying face down in a pool of blood next to her bed.
The girl's boyfriend, Hakeem Jamile Lennard Hearns, 19, was left bleeding near the front door. He was airlifted to Lee Memorial Hospital with severe injuries.
Kaley heard a shot, looked out the front door and saw Sihr coming toward her with a gun pointed at her, she told deputies. She shut and locked the door to escape the man whose head was partially hidden by a pullover with a hood.
Kaley ran into her mother's room and woke her up, a warrant states. The teenager hid in the closet; her mother went into the bathroom. At least one of them tried to call 911, but police were unable due to workload to answer the emergency call.
Kaley told deputies she heard banging and peeked out of the closet door.
She saw Sihr grab a phone from her mother, she told deputies. He dragged Kendrick into the bedroom, asking for money and drugs.
Kaley "Kendrick remembers hearing the victim tell the perpetrator to take everything and Kendrick then heard a gunshot," the warrant states.
" 'Where is the daughter at?' " Kaley said she heard the other intruder say. " 'She ran!' " Sihr said."
Kaley heard doors slamming, another gunshot and silence, she told deputies. A few minutes later, she came out to find her mother and boyfriend had been shot.
===========
Of course, if you're armed, the story that the newspapers report after you defend yourself are quite a bit different:
----------
RANCHO CORDOVA, Calif. -- A home invasion robbery in Rancho Cordova turned deadly Thursday when at least two people tried to rob a home, and the people inside opened fire, according to authorities.
When officers arrived at the scene, two people were shot.
"One was down in the doorway. The other one was down right out in front of the residence," said Sacramento County Sheriff's Department spokesman Sgt. R.L. Davis. "One had a gunshot wound to the chest. The other one had one to the leg. They were transported, both of them, to the UC Davis Medical Center, where one was pronounced deceased.
==============
Man Dies After Attempted Home Invasion On 39th Street
posted April 6, 2007
A man died after a shooting on 39th Street on Friday afternoon.
The Chattanooga Police Department was summoned to the scene of the shooting at 1717 West 39th St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, according to Sean Paul of WGOW Talk Radio.
Investigators said the owner of the residence, Stacy Eubanks, and his brother, Kevin Walker, were inside the residence and saw a lone gunman wearing a ski mask approach the door. They tried to close the door, but were not able to. A struggle ensued and multiple shots were fired.
The suspect, Andre Lavelle Terry, 38, of Chattanooga, was shot and died on the scene.
===========
Home Invasion Suspect Killed
Jennifer Leslie Reports
Police continue to investigate an overnight shooting on Folkstone Road.
Web Editor: Minnie Bridgers
Last Modified: 3/12/2007 8:16:46 AM
DeKalb County police continue to investigate an overnight shooting near Brookhaven that killed a man.
Investigators said they believe a man, who may have been homeless, broke into a house on Folkstone Road off Buford Highway around 12 a.m. Sunday. He was armed with a knife.
The homeowner shot the suspect. He died Sunday morning at Grady Memorial Hospital.
Police have not released the suspect's name.
Officers said the homeowner will not face any charges in the shooting.
===========
Wouldn't everyone here much rather be one of the people who were able to defend themselves, rather than a victim who is killed/raped/beaten because they were unable to react to a criminal about to attack them?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
I'm still waiting for you to answer the questions ripley.
I already answered your question. Now if you can't understand it then I can't help it. As a sidenote, your world seems awfully egocentric. Me me me me ME ME ME!
But as I said everything points to the fact that in US people do need weapons and survival training. Everyone is armed, especially the criminals and due to the rampant drug problem nobody is safe anymore.
I'd probably sleep with an assault rifle loaded next to me if I lived there.
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n270/Bubblehead_2006/square-large-atf.gif)
-
All of the high profile shootings during this same period and since have yet to catch up to either of these events. And it's not like mutliple arson deaths on a lesser scale are rare. Arson deaths by the handful -- 3 here, 7 there, etc. -- happen all the time. Often, entire families get wiped out. We just had 11 arson deaths in two incidents in the past two weeks. In one case 5 children died, just like the Amish school shooting. Where was the 24 hour media coveage?
yup..usualy how it goes...you never hear about all the deaths on the highway..or all the stabbing deaths...but soon as some one is shot...thats all you hear.
i really think news is plain horrible and rediculous now days..makes me sick when all i see if 24 hour anna nicole for a month..or when some guy shoots some one ..all you see is about that for a month....but a poor person who gets stabbed to death daily....doesnt even get mentioned on mainstream news....like some one said up there..guns are 1% of the deaths in the country...they are just showing news on those murders to try and push more laws to controll us.
here is a pic of my meger gun colection at the moment:)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/769_1175546038_guns2.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/769_1175545993_guns.jpg)
westernfield pump shot gun
30/40 krag sporter
1944 springfield m1 garand:) my baby there..lol
colt ar-15 target match lightweight
rolling block 22
1930's 22 long barrel rem
410 bolt action
22 pump
1960's p38 walther cold war..last year of the p38 before the p1
44 colt dragoon reissue\
44 uberti dragoon reissue
44 rem new army
31 cal baby navy
mini 1911 astra cub 22 short:) my little packer
-
wow im gonna stay away from your house lol :O :O :O
-
Now the BATF knows just what to look for when they come to your house, Hyena.
-
If the reason for not having tougher gun control is that it reduces the ability of regular citizens to combat crime, then what the hell are police doing these days? I'm talking USA here. It's like saying we're doing one hell of a poor job of "law and order" in this country. Anyone in AH reading this work for law-enforcement? Are you guys really that inept? All arguments against gun control that I've seen here are bad ones. If the arguments are valid, however, then what we need is vastly improved law-enforcement, AND once that is attained--gun control. The vast majority of the anti-gun-control argurments here seem to say that we need to have guns in order to protect ourselves (succeed where the police are "failing"). Since when have we latched on to the opposite of the oft-promoted idea that we shouldn't "take the law into our own hands"? Has the age of Mad Max finally arrived? Oh wait, I believe that movie was set in Australia. Hmm. The policeman is nearing extinction. Or is it that we're becoming the wild west again?
The above is an attempt to provoke intelligent argument on the subject, not to step on anyone's 2nd amendment rights, and comes from an avid skeet shooter and former hunter. I mean, in a strictly hypothetical sense, if there was absolutely no need for guns to exist (no crime, no war, and an unlimited food supply not dependent on hunting) would it really be necessary for guns to even exist? I would gladly turn in my over-under 12-gauge, 20-gauge and 410 if a better world would result. Hell, I'd settle for using my pellet gun for target practice. Yea, I know that it's not the world we currently live in, but how must we prolong this insanity?
-
Often I think it's just the workload that prevents an effective response to an emergency.
We've been told before that it's often better to call the fire department in any kind of emergency because they'll arrive before the police. In one example above during a home invasion, at least one call was made to 911 while the intruders were entering the house. Police failed to respond.
I don't believe it's in anyone's best interest to absolutely depend upon others for protection and safety. The best person to look after your defense and well-being, is yourself. Personally, when living in Tampa I had a young guy strung out on dope break down my door after I'd come home in the evening and went to take a shower. When the police arrived about 1/4 of an hour after my 911 call, one officer said that was a relatively rapid response.
Another officer has told me that they routinely delay responses to armed situations in order to allow the perps to escape and not place them in a situation where hostages might be taken.
Bottom line is...you should be ready for a huge disappointment if you're going to rely on someone else to go in harm's way to protect you and your loved ones.
-
Now the BATF knows just what to look for when they come to your house, Hyena.
why would they come to my house? i own nothing illegal to be worried about ..i have a spotless record....and most of my guns are so old they dont even count in most gun laws that are passed...as of yet:P
-
I think you're missing my point, warspawn and charon. Let me repeat I'm not in favour of gun control. But I do think the easy availability of guns, while it doesn't cause these massacres. It essentially facilitates them. That's not an argument for gun control just an essential fact.
There is a pattern with these crazies, problems relating to people, lack of success in their personal and working lives, loners, gun obsessed, paranoid, fantasists. It's a common thread. They storm into a situation kill people they blame for their misfortune and then kill themselves. They go out in a blaze of glory as they see it.
Arsonists are different, they don't usually die in the fire. They enjoy watching it.
They use guns because that is the precedent. These nutjobs are out to make a point. Cho went further than most by releasing a 'press pack'. Most leave something to justify their acts.
You could kill more people with bombs or fire or simply driving a truck down a crowded street but it lacks the macho appeal of shooting people. That's why they use guns.
-
OK, Biggles I'd like to here your detailed rationale as to why the arguments do not make sense.
1. How would bans or restrictions keep firearms or certain classes of firearms out of criminal hands? Do bans work with drugs, which are illegal in all 50 states and every bordering country, and in the case of heroin and cocaine cannot even be produced domestically? If a criminal wants a gun to have an advantage in an unarmed society, can you even remotely state that criminal would not be able to get one even with a far more restrictive marketplace. And if not, then why should the criminals be the only ones allowed to be armed?
2. "What we need is vastly improved law-enforcement..."
I would imagine, if improved with superpowers such as ESP they could arrive on the scene of a crime before it is committed. Otherwise, we are talking about a police state with an even greater erosion on the rest of the Bill of Rights to make this happen, and still I don't think you could even remotely attain the goal of the police preventing crime -- do the math.
3. Since when have we latched on to the opposite of the oft-promoted idea that we shouldn't "take the law into our own hands"?
You're describing vigilante justice -- going out and looking for someone who has already committed a crime or for potential criminals without contacting law enforcement. It's not "taking the law into your own hands" to defend yourself or your family from violence. Would you suggest telling the criminal breaking in the door to please wait while I call the police and for the 5-30 minutes before they arrive before you continue so we can do this the official way? If somebody took a swing at you, would you let him pummel you or swing back?
4.I mean, in a strictly hypothetical sense, if there was absolutely no need for guns to exist (no crime, no war, and an unlimited food supply not dependent on hunting) would it really be necessary for guns to even exist?
Not if you could completely change ingrained human nature over night. Could you stop a 230 lb (all muscle) vicious prison-hardened predator with your bare hands from doing whatever he wanted to you and anyone one else you care about? What about two or three of these predators? Let's say you were wrongly accused of a crime and ended up in a "gun free" prison with hardened criminals. Would you feel safe bending over to pick up the soap in a shower? No guns after all.
A firearm allows the aged, infirm, women or even average folk to level the playing field with these predators. And if they have a gun at least it's a draw, and likely a win for the good guys if they actually know how to use the weapon. In fact, a range of violent criminal behavior tends to evaporate if criminals feel that there is a likelihood of meeting resistance -- home invasion while the occupants are inside, for example.
Would you feel safe walking alone down the streets of the worst urban crime areas if guns were removed from the equation? Would you want a gun for protection if you had to live or work in these neighborhoods? I know when I lived in Chicago, in a "middle ground" neighborhood and occasionally entered in and out of far worse neighborhoods I had little actual fear of "firearm violence" per se. I had little fear of violence in general, frankly, but when I was worried I usually projected being surrounded and beaten to death for robbery and amusement. No real need to use a gun if I couldn't really pose a serious threat.
4. I would gladly turn in my over-under 12-gauge, 20-gauge and 410 if a better world would result.
The primary argument for the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "hunting" or "sporting purposes." Any hunting or sporting rights you may appreciate are not in fact covered under the Constitution at all. It's not even primarily about personal self defense, though that is certainly covered in the Constitution.
Ultimately, the final line of defense for our republic is in our hands. We are not subjects, we are citizens who do not need to rely on the kindness of our leaders since we, ourselves, lead this country. The founders fully knew this since an armed population was what enabled our freedom in the first place. One could argue that we "are beyond all that" but frankly I don't quite see it just yet. I believe we are perhaps one nuclear terrorist attack away from having a government quite different from the one now, perhaps one "only for the duration of the emergency" but that may not want to turn back the clock once that emergency has passed. It was within living generations that we saw the Holocaust, Pol Pot, Rawanda (mostly killed with machetes) , the Yugoslavian break up and mass killings, the civil rights killings in the south, the detention of the Japaneses American -- really a long list beyond these examples. Are we as humans, and even as "civilized" Americans, past the point where we can ignore the potential for tyranny?
5. As pointed out, in the case of nutjobs like the latests guy, gasoline and match are the deadliest weapon of mass destruction, and one that is easily substituted for a firearm.
6. The hypocrisy test. Since firearm violence is directly comparable to alcohol from an impact on society standpoint, and since most non-gangbangers are at far greater risk from alcohol than firearms statistically, would you be in favor of bringing back prohibition for the good of society?
Charon
-
But I do think the easy availability of guns, while it doesn't cause these massacres. It essentially facilitates them. That's not an argument for gun control just an essential fact.
You could kill more people with bombs or fire or simply driving a truck down a crowded street but it lacks the macho appeal of shooting people. That's why they use guns.
What you have to keep in mind, is that in a population of 300 million these events are exceedingly rare. In a laundry list of fears this would be well below getting hit by lightning. If you want to regulate all potentially harmful things to this level -- everything more dangerous than lightning -- then go ahead. There would be no alcohol for sale (probaly the third thing to go after firearms and tobacco. Then would come dangerous foods, and so on. Sports would involve stationary bike races, for example. I don't particularly want to live in that society.
Arsonists are different, they don't usually die in the fire. They enjoy watching it.
In the example I cited, these were strictly people who just used fire as a means to an end, which was revenge. I don't think they enjoyed watching the fires as much as they enjoyed the though of killing the people they blamed for their problems.
Charon
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I already answered your question. Now if you can't understand it then I can't help it. As a sidenote, your world seems awfully egocentric. Me me me me ME ME ME!
But as I said everything points to the fact that in US people do need weapons and survival training. Everyone is armed, especially the criminals and due to the rampant drug problem nobody is safe anymore.
I'd probably sleep with an assault rifle loaded next to me if I lived there.
Actually no you didn't answer the questions. I really didn't expect you to since it was pretty easy to see what you said was pure fantasy bovine excrement. Pretty much like what what I quoted above here.
You really have no clue about what it's like to live here, you just like to engage in simple slander. It's hardly the "armed camp" you allege and the actual chance of being the victim of a crime especially a violent one, is rather small other than perhaps in your imagination.
I have worked in the US with people with both good and bad intentions and managed to do so without ever having to kill or shoot anyone. I don't have to deal in fantasy or baseless allegations. I've been there, done that for real. You should try it some time.
-
charon mav and others have answered all the gun control myths and "feelings" pretty well but... to summarize..
you in england or ireland or australia.. name one gun control law that was passed that reduced homicide or violent crime in your country.
granted.. you had a lower overall rate at all times... a few less per hundred thousand.. but.. what laws did you pass that reduced that?
When you had guns freely available you had few homicides... you passed laws to remove firearms and you had.. the same amount of homicides... burglary went up... some other violent crime went up.
I have a 45 on my nightstand. Who are you to tell me I can't? Who will protect me if you take it away from me? You? The police? Who?
What will happen to the 1.5 million or so citizens a year that now stop crimes with a firearm?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Actually no you didn't answer the questions. I really didn't expect you to since it was pretty easy to see what you said was pure fantasy bovine excrement. Pretty much like what what I quoted above here.
You really have no clue about what it's like to live here, you just like to engage in simple slander. It's hardly the "armed camp" you allege and the actual chance of being the victim of a crime especially a violent one, is rather small other than perhaps in your imagination.
I have worked in the US with people with both good and bad intentions and managed to do so without ever having to kill or shoot anyone. I don't have to deal in fantasy or baseless allegations. I've been there, done that for real. You should try it some time.
Oh right, this is the part where you give the contradicting story where you don't actually need weapons for personal safety but yet feel the absolute need to own one, right? Riiight.. :lol
As what goes with your original questions, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the differences of the benefit of the community versus your egocentric view of the world. It would be utter waste of my time, as is this thread.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Oh right, this is the part where you give the contradicting story where you don't actually need weapons for personal safety but yet feel the absolute need to own one, right? Riiight.. :lol
As what goes with your original questions, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the differences of the benefit of the community versus your egocentric view of the world. It would be utter waste of my time, as is this thread.
Translation.
You really don't have anything to say so you'll just blather on and claim a victory in the "discussion without having brought anything to back up a ridiculous allegation.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Oh right, this is the part where you give the contradicting story where you don't actually need weapons for personal safety but yet feel the absolute need to own one, right? Riiight.. :lol
As what goes with your original questions, I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain the differences of the benefit of the community versus your egocentric view of the world. It would be utter waste of my time, as is this thread.
My opinion is YES, I do need a gun to ensure my personal safety. 99.9% of the time I would be perfectly fine without one but that .1% of the time I like to KNOW I have it.
Needed one 3 times so far when I've stopped criminals from breaking into my truck and house. Never fired a shot but the presense of myself with my 12 gage shotgun stopped those criminals and prevented the loss of my personal property, and in one of the situations something possibly worse than theft as one of them had a gun on him when I caught him in my garage.
You probably think I would have been better off just letting them go and calling the police with the false hope that I might get my property back, but I choose to be a little more pro active than that. What I have is MINE. I worked for everything I own and I'll be damned if I'm going to sit back and just let someone steal from me if I can stop it myself.
My guns and my rights as an American allow me to protect myself my family, and my property so why shouldn't I excercise those rights? Who thinks they have the right to deny me my rights? Who has the right to tell me that I shouldn't have the right to my personal protection?
That's what the anti-gun crowd is telling me. Those people by their actions and words are telling me that I don't deserve the right to protect myself or my property in any situation. That I should trust them with my protection. Well those people couldn't protect a warm cup of piss and that's a FACT!!!!
It was the anti-gun folks that took away the rights of those people at VT and look what happened. I hope every person with a CCW that attends that school files a class action lawsuit against VT for unlawfully stripping them of their RIGHT to protect themselves because it's painfully obvious that the school and the police CAN'T do the job.
You don't want to waste time with this discussion because you don't have the first clue as to what the issues are. You live in your little utopian country of Finland where you expect the government to take care of you. That's not how we do things here. You don't like it? Too bad. You don't live here so why do you even care?
I'm an American. I have the right to own a gun and I use it. I don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it and why should I? For damn sure the rest of the world doesn't care about us. Bashing on America is the rest of the worlds greatest past time, yet what country is always the first ones there helping out when something bad happens??? What country donates more money to third world countries in relief aid every year??? What country takes in more imigrants than any other every year??? Yeah that would be the United States of America, but you go on telling us how screwed up we are over here.
-
Heh it all boils down to 'I have a right' forgetting the consequences. Didn't they already teach you in the army that there's no I in team? :D
But really, this whole thing is not worth an argument as the situation there is what it is. It's too late to close the bag when cat is already out of the bag. Theoretically my opinnion still is that everyone would be better off if there was less guns and gun related crime. But facts are facts and one should view the situation on realistic basis. Therefore I concur with you that your right to bear arms should be extended to take effect everywhere and at all times.
Recently I've heard excellent arguments supporting the carry right (such as similar murder rampage attempted and stopped in an area where people could carry) and successful rampages taking place in gun free zones mainly.
So self defence is a viable reason - private militia against govenrment however.. Well that sounds awfully 3rd world to me. No offense.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Heh it all boils down to 'I have a right' forgetting the consequences. Didn't they already teach you in the army that there's no I in team? :D
A place where there's no I is called communism.
-
Who's forgetting the consequences? Everyone I know including myself that has a CCW FULLY understands the responsiblities and the moral obligations that come with owning and carrying a firearm. We are on the "team" trying to defend ourselves and others by being pro-active and taking responsibility for ourselves and others. We have made the CHOICE to exercise our rights and become active citizens in our communities to fight against unlawfull people. The fact that we are willing to stand up and tell the world that yes we are armed and we are willing to make a moral stand if need be, scares those people that think every problem in the world can be solved with talk and a hug.
I've served in combat, and I have taken human life before. It wasn't plesant and it's not something I EVER want to do again, but that doesn't mean I wont if I have to. As I said earlier, I have used a gun 3 times preventing crime. 2 of those time the suspects were IN my home and according to the law in the states I was living in at the time, I would have been justified in shooting them, but it wasn't neccesary at the time so I didn't. I had the drop on them, they knew it, and offered no resistance so I mearly detained them for the OVER 30 minutes it took for the police to arrive.
This happens more often than not but no one ever hears about cases like this because no one was hurt. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I'm going to shoot and kill everyone that comes in my home. That will only happen if the situation dictates that I must take a life to save my own or anyone around me. That is the moral responsibility I'm talking about. Knowing when to pull the trigger and knowing when not too.
So I say to you that you are wrong by thinking that it all boils down to "I have the right" It goes much deeper than that.
As far as your private militia agaisnt the government statement, I'll say this again. Political power has always come out of the barrel of a gun. In this country the powers of the government are derived from the will of the governed i.e. the citizens of this country. When the citizens are no longer allowed or able to control the government by force if neccesary, that government is no longer responsible to the citizens and you end up with a dictatorship or a monarchy style of government. That's not the American way. Fear the government that fears your guns, because once the government has no fear of the people, that government will then try and control every aspect of your life, and that's not freedom.
-
Originally posted by mora
A place where there's no I is called communism.
That and the army. But that's hardly the point. The point is that sometimes an individual should make sacrifices for a greater good. Too much egoism is short sighted.
What goes to private militia, how many of you would really be ready to start a civil war? I mean really. Abandon everything that's valuable to you and start killing your countrymen. Where is the line drawn, what wrong doing is enough to destroy your society, economical structure and your place as world power in one strike?
Because that's what civil war will bring to you. Tempting eh?
In 19th century people had it so rough that life was a survival fight in any case. In todays world this stuff happens only in 3rd world who live where you were in 19th century today. It's a crack dream to think the US would plunge into a coup anymore unless maybe every Mexican decided to leave back home one day. :p
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
The point is that sometimes an individual should make sacrifices for a greater good.
That's exactly the leftist reply I expected. What exactly is a "greater good"? Who defines it?
-
Originally posted by mora
That's exactly the leftist reply I expected. What exactly is a "greter good"? Who defines it?
Common sense. I always knew you were 100% egocentric but this comment really blows me away. Democracy by definition is making sacrifices for a greater good. Following a leadership that's elected through opinnions of the majority. The system really doesn't give a rats bellybutton about your ego.
You don't believe in democracy? Why were you again still living in Finland then?
-
Common sense?? Sometimes an individual should make sacrifices for the greater good???
I would gather that as far as sacrifices are concerned you are all for someone else doing the sacrificing. I spent just about 2 decades in uniform daily placing myself in harms way for others facing folks of no good intent, armed and not. I spent 24 years in the Army Reserves as well. I think I have a better idea of sacrificing then most. I also learned that sacrificing basic rights is not about making the place better, it's about diminishing everyone in the population by removing something they had as a citizen because of irrational fear.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Common sense. I always knew you were 100% egocentric but this comment really blows me away. Democracy by definition is making sacrifices for a greater good. Following a leadership that's elected through opinnions of the majority. The system really doesn't give a rats bellybutton about your ego.
You don't believe in democracy? Why were you again still living in Finland then?
I respect people's freedom and their right of ownership as long as they respect my freedom and right of ownership. It's quite possible to have a democracy where those are the only "sacrifises" a person has to make. That's opposite of egocentric, and I couldn't possibly support anything that would violate those rights. You on the other hand seem to pick what you feel to suit you best.
You didn't answer the question about what the "greater good" is?
I won't answer the personal attack part because it would be too off topic.
-
Let's see how the gun ban in Austrailia is working out for them shall we?
In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.
WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
* Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
* Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
* Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
* In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
* In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
* There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
Yeah, it's working out real well for them. Please excuse me if I don't care to see us copy their great handling of crime and guns.
-
Originally posted by mora
I respect people's freedom and their right of ownership as long as they respect my freedom and right of ownership. It's quite possible to have a democracy where those are the only "sacrifises" a person has to make. That's opposite of egocentric, and I couldn't possibly support anything that would violate those rights. You on the other hand seem to pick what you feel to suit you best.
You didn't answer the question about what the "greater good" is?
I won't answer the personal attack part because it would be too off topic.
Well, mora, your question cannot be answered hypothetically because something like greater good can not be defined by anyone. But in practise the elected officials pass legislation which in fact, define a greater good. One example could be a person who has a freedom of speech and right for his personal freedom. Then one day that person commits a crime. The court will then take these rigths away from the person for the greater good of the society. People are just better off without the perp walking the streets. And so the system works, for over a million free americans today slammed in jails. For the greater good of the society, an individuals right to build a garage nuclear reactor or a bomb has been taken away. Damn those legislators! Wouldn't it be cool to build a homegrown nuke?? Nobody would rob your house with THAT baby around!
Something like guns for example cause needless accidents and deaths of children, cause mass murder rampages in the hands of the nutbags, cause impulse suicides, cause an alarming rate of armed robberies, armed house entries, armed police resistance and whatever imaginable, for the greater good of the society one should get rid of guns all in all and limit their use to persons who can show they're up for the task. Now we all know this is just utopia because the pro gun ownership legislation has been in place for centuries. Therefore the whole country is packed with small arms easily accessible to any criminals and nutbags. As I earlier stated the higher the percentage of the population owns guns, the higher percentage of the nutbags of the population owns guns too, and the results are all too clear. Add in rampant drug problem to the mix and you have a mentally challenged, drugged out and violent gun owner living next door. Man that sounds good!
So in answer to your question, the legislator defines the greater good whichever seems fit for the society in question. All those pesky laws that you have to follow mostly are made with that aim. Who want's to pay taxes to support the military and police core when you can keep all your money for yourself, right? Who want's to follow the speed limits when the road is straight and your car could do 160mph easy right? Who want's to detain from murdering the neighbour after an argument when you really feel like you should take that shotgun off the wall and go pop one in his belly, right? Who want's to buy a motorcycle that has 220hp from the factory but is converted to max 150hp at the border to try and protect idiots from killing others and themselves (although still failing at that).. all those pesky laws designed to keep the society safe and running. Sure some are stupid, like the law that bans people from buying sex toys for their own pleasure or defines which kind of sex positions a person can have in the privacy of his home.. Sure those are really stupid laws which nobody surely follows. But at that time, however erroneus it's thoughts, the legislator saw fit to pass this kind of law for the greater good. You may disagree with it - but you have to live with it. Or move away. I hear Somalia has really few effective laws left anymore. There you can feel free, even to protect yourself from outside attacks. A friggin paradise.
-
Ripley, forget it. Guns are too deeply interwoven into the American experience. We need to find other solutions to the vexing problem of a few human beings treating all the rest of us human beings like ****. I still believe that some level of mental health testing would be useful but the reality of that is poor at best. About the only solution I can think of is to allow decent people the right to carry firearms in places where the average person would rather not have firearms present, just the sort of places where nutjobs would go to murder a big group of toothless grazers, like kids sitting in class.
I have started carrying concealed again, after about 6 years of not doing it. I guess I see it like this, one armed citizen can potentially save dozens, if not hundreds of lives if providence allows it. One concealed carrier could have saved many lives last week. Could have......
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Ripley, forget it. Guns are too deeply interwoven into the American experience. We need to find other solutions to the vexing problem of a few human beings treating all the rest of us human beings like ****. I still believe that some level of mental health testing would be useful but the reality of that is poor at best. About the only solution I can think of is to allow decent people the right to carry firearms in places where the average person would rather not have firearms present, just the sort of places where nutjobs would go to murder a big group of toothless grazers, like kids sitting in class.
I have started carrying concealed again, after about 6 years of not doing it. I guess I see it like this, one armed citizen can potentially save dozens, if not hundreds of lives if providence allows it. One concealed carrier could have saved many lives last week. Could have......
Realistically speaking I agree with you Yeager. In a perfect world things would probably be better off with less guns around but then again, in a perfect world no gun would ever be misused either.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Somalia has really few effective laws left anymore. There you can feel free, even to protect yourself from outside attacks. A friggin paradise.
Are people's freedom and ownership rights respected in Somalia? I didn't say there shouldn't be any laws, and you made a straw man argument. There however should be considerably less laws, but the remaining laws should be strongly enforced, and real criminals should be properly punished.
-
Originally posted by mora
Are people's freedom and ownership rights respected in Somalia? I didn't say there shouldn't be any laws, and you made a straw man argument. There however should be considerably less laws, but the remaining laws should be strongly enforced, and real criminals should be properly punished.
They're perfectly respected once you point your AK47 or bazooka at the drugged out raiding party that arrives at your yard. Just like you like it. ;)
You implied yourself that there is no such thing as common good and as such, no law can be determined since every law limits someones rights in some way. Anarchy is, then, the only place where you want to be. Cue Somalia.
-
ripley... to answer your question of need.
I have never been in a wreck where a seatbelt would help me... most have not... is that a reason to never use em? they are a huge pain in the butt to use.. don't you feel a little silly putting one on when it will never come into play? paranoid?
I have never had a house burn down... not many have... we have fire departments to put em out. why have insurance? You are much more likely to need a gun in your life than you are fire insurance.
Those who think the cops can protect you... Have you not seen the film of our riots and the store owners with "assault weapons" defending their stores while the thugs walk down the street with loot from stores where the owners did not defend? The truckdriver stomped half to death? where were the police?
On a good day they don't go into those areas or.. if they do it is with locked doors on their cruisers.
Certainly half our homicides and most of our crime comes from one type of big city area and one or two minorities...
Without their contribution our homicide and crime rate is not very high... should I give up my right to defend myself and others on the off chance that some law that removes my rights will make these people behave better?
What gun laws in your countries (england, australia) made things better, reduced violent crime and homicide?
Do you enjoy hiding in your locked room on the phone to the police while burglars ransack your home? Why have you given up your rights? Why do you lack human courage and responsibility? Is that why your societies are decaying, because you have given these things over to a government?
I think yes.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ripley... to answer your question of need.
I have never been in a wreck where a seatbelt would help me... most have not... is that a reason to never use em? they are a huge pain in the butt to use.. don't you feel a little silly putting one on when it will never come into play? paranoid?
I have never had a house burn down... not many have... we have fire departments to put em out. why have insurance? You are much more likely to need a gun in your life than you are fire insurance.
Those who think the cops can protect you... Have you not seen the film of our riots and the store owners with "assault weapons" defending their stores while the thugs walk down the street with loot from stores where the owners did not defend? The truckdriver stomped half to death? where were the police?
On a good day they don't go into those areas or.. if they do it is with locked doors on their cruisers.
Certainly half our homicides and most of our crime comes from one type of big city area and one or two minorities...
Without their contribution our homicide and crime rate is not very high... should I give up my right to defend myself and others on the off chance that some law that removes my rights will make these people behave better?
What gun laws in your countries (england, australia) made things better, reduced violent crime and homicide?
Do you enjoy hiding in your locked room on the phone to the police while burglars ransack your home? Why have you given up your rights? Why do you lack human courage and responsibility? Is that why your societies are decaying, because you have given these things over to a government?
I think yes.
lazs
No lazs our society is far from decaying. Finns got the 2nd highest place in the 'happiness' study where different countries were evaluated on how content the occupants are to their life. Major factors being low corruption, low violence expectancy and trust to the government. Our economy is growing at a record rate and we're one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world. Did you know that 95% of finns have access to broadband internet? My 75 year old grandfather has broadband at his home, he uses a dating service after my grandmother passed away. :eek:
We're happy campers.
I'm not afraid of burglars entering my house - our front door is unlocked 20 hours of the day. We only lock it when we all leave the house or all are asleep, but even then many nights it's left open.
My garage door is unlocked 24/7 with all tools and stuff inside. We keep our mercedes's outside, sometimes also unlocked. Nobody took them so far. Well, we do take the keys out of the car at least. :rolleyes:
As what goes for wearing seatbelts in a car, I take them for granted. I value my life enough to wear this free form of protection even when the law doesn't require it. I also drive a Mercedes for the same reason. I wouldn't even dream of going out on the road not wearing the simple piece of fabric that can very well save my life in conjunction with the many airbags in the car.
And for the fire insurance.. well let's just say that our expectancy for fire and gun use must be really different because I've never even dreamed about HAVING to use a gun on anything in my life - but I've almost managed to burn my house with decorative lighting.
Nobody I know on personal level owns a gun for personal protection. Not even people who work driving a taxi, they only have mace with them. My ex employer had a carry permit, he did money transfers for a job. Even for him, the gun was more of a toy to play with instead of a real necessity.
I know several police officers personally. None of them ever used their gun in the line of duty. They didn't have to.
-
if there is no crime, why do your taxi drivers carry mace? bad tips?
-
Is a person who is happy a smart person?
Is a person who reasons that he will never have a fire and doesn't get insurance a happy person? He can be... he is living in a lala land world and doesn't see the world as it is... many of the insane are very happy.
Are you telling me that no one is assaulted or killed in your country where a gun would have saved them? Are you telling me that your population is not dieing out?
Are you saying that there is no chance that your home will ever be burglarized?
Yet... you live in such unrealistic fear that you put a seatbelt on every time you drive even tho you know you will never need it?
This seems to be at the least, the definition of ignorance is bliss. Insanity at worst.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Is a person who is happy a smart person?
Is a person who reasons that he will never have a fire and doesn't get insurance a happy person? He can be... he is living in a lala land world and doesn't see the world as it is... many of the insane are very happy.
Are you telling me that no one is assaulted or killed in your country where a gun would have saved them? Are you telling me that your population is not dieing out?
Are you saying that there is no chance that your home will ever be burglarized?
Yet... you live in such unrealistic fear that you put a seatbelt on every time you drive even tho you know you will never need it?
This seems to be at the least, the definition of ignorance is bliss. Insanity at worst.
lazs
Rofl lazs I drive 40 000 miles a year and I've had 3 accidents one being major one. I would be picking my face off the windshield unless for wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing one is plain dumb. Period.
As what goes for assaults and need for a gun - well if you hang around drunks at a drunks home you have a high potential of getting hurt. Personally I've never felt any need to take any action whatsoever for my personal safety in normal life. Sometimes in a bar fight I've relocated myself out of harms way.
I don't feel threatened by anyone at my own home so I have no need for any defensive measures. And I'm happy about it - I would hate to fear something so much that I'd have to arm myself.
Now if someone I knew or lived nearby would get burglarized some day - maybe my opinnion would / will change. Who knows. So far I see much more important to keep my house gun free just to protect my children from playing with one accidentally. I'm a really sloppy person and I just know that if I kept a gun at the house, I'd leave it somewhere where the kids would find it sooner or later.
This is a risk I'm not willing to take.
-
Originally posted by john9001
if there is no crime, why do your taxi drivers carry mace? bad tips?
First of all, Finland is far from crime free.. But at the same time I can say nobody I know thinks they're not safe at their home. People don't have the fear of someone entering their house and doing whatnot. At least I don't know anyone who would myself included.
Taxi drivers carry money and drunk people regularly. Drunks do stupid stuff and here in Finland, one can get extremely drunk.
If you stay out of the vicinity of drunks, Finland is a very safe place to be.
My biggest worries in life is drunk drivers and moose on the road. A gun won't help with either one. A seatbelt on the other hand is about the best thing I can do to protect myself from those threats, outside of not driving as a part of my job.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Common sense?? Sometimes an individual should make sacrifices for the greater good???
That is exactly what our "Bill of Rights" was meant to prevent. The loss of certain rights to the "greater good". The Bill of Rights was implemented to stop a simple majority from removing "inalienable rights" from individuals without an extreme amount of oversight and review. This concept is ingrained into every American (even the gun-haters) that individual rights are a cornerstone of our way of life.
The only way to remove these Rights is a full Constitutional Amendment repealing the earlier Amendment. At this time, I would be extremely opposed to any amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. I believe a HUGE majority of Americans would be opposed to an amendment repealing ANY of the "Bill of Rights" amendments.
Terror
-
Originally posted by Terror
That is exactly what our "Bill of Rights" was meant to prevent. The loss of certain rights to the "greater good". The Bill of Rights was implemented to stop a simple majority from removing "inalienable rights" from individuals without an extreme amount of oversight and review. This concept is ingrained into every American (even the gun-haters) that individual rights are a cornerstone of our way of life.
The only way to remove these Rights is a full Constitutional Amendment repealing the earlier Amendment. At this time, I would be extremely opposed to any amendment repealing the 2nd Amendment. I believe a HUGE majority of Americans would be opposed to an amendment repealing ANY of the "Bill of Rights" amendments.
Terror
So you believe that every American has the born right to bear arms, even if they're criminally insane? Example of a fine principle applied wrong.
-
Anyway I want to end this argument to these words:
I don't feel a need to own a gun for personal protection. I've sometimes thought of applying for a permit for hobby use - but for reasons mentioned I don't want to risk having a weapon in my house at this moment.
Secondly, I'm wishing you guys could also live in a society where you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself. I'm wishing this with all sincerety.
I also believe it's your constitutional right to keep weapons - I can't really say anything about that even if I wanted to. No beef there.
Basically I'm just wondering how people don't see the amount of gun crime as a big problem that should at least try to be addressed in some way. Registering gun ownership and background checks prior to giving permits would be one step in that direction. But conspiracy / anti government types like lazs get a fit from the mere idea.. :)
That's their right also. I'm not trying or hoping to remove any of that from you. I'm just curious as an outsider, living in a different world.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
So you believe that every American has the born right to bear arms, even if they're criminally insane? Example of a fine principle applied wrong.
I didn't say that. (Actually no where close...) Once a citizen is proven that he does not respect the rights of others, he should loose most of his rights. Even after the primary punisjment (prison, etc) is completed, some rights should never be regained. This is completely acceptable when an individual has made the choice to infringe on the rights of others. But until a judge has made the decision to remove those rights through due process, the rights of that individual should not be infringed.
Terror
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
So you believe that every American has the born right to bear arms, even if they're criminally insane? Example of a fine principle applied wrong.
Yes in this country EVERY citizen is born with those rights. Those rights can only be taken away if the person is convicted of a felony or declared mentaly incompetent by approved authority.
So a convicted felon or someone declared mentaly insane can not buy, own, or have in their possesion a firearm. Now before you go off about Cho and his being able to purchase a gun you need to understand one simple FACT. The system is not perfect. Yes he was evaluated by competent authority as a danger to himself and others but that evaluation was NOT performed due to his breaking any laws therefor those records were not allowed to be sent to the law enforcement authorities. If his records had been sent it would have been a violation of HIS 4th amendment rights. Now if a judge had ordered his mental evaluation in connection with a crime and a warrant had been issued to secure such an evaluation then it would have made it on his federal record and he would NOT have been able to legaly purchase a gun.
What you are failing to understand is that even though we as Americans have many different laws concerning many different things, we have RIGHTS that cannot be taken away from us without due process. Granted many of these rights enable criminals to do some horrific things before due process has a chance to be affective, but that is a small price to pay for our freedom. Our Rights were put there for the greater good of our citizens.
Our Declaration of Independance, and our Bill of Rights spells this out for us very clearly.
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
Amendment II: Right to bear arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment IV: Search and arrest warrants
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-
YES SIR! I hear you loud and clear. Pls dont shoot me! :D
-
Awww I wouldn't shoot anyone unless they were direct threat to me or those around me. I certainly wouldn't want to shoot you.
This has been a good discussion of this issue, but like any issue there is always going to be 2 sides to it.
I fully understand and respect your point of view, I just don't happen to believe the same thing and that's fine.
Debate is healthy for everyone because it gives everyone insight to how other people think and feel about things. Maybe some people will start to think differently and then there are hard headed people like me who will never change how they think about something. Whatever.
What I have enjoyed most out of this thread is "talking" with people like yourself from other countries and getting your perspective on my country. I find it educational and I like to learn new things all the time.
I honestly thank you for participating in this thread because I have a little better understanding of how other people view my country.
MrRipley
-
right back at ya Hornet33
-
definitions: a right-wing gun nut= a gun banning liberal that was just mugged.