PDA

View Full Version : Our Prayers go out to Omaha



Pages : [1] 2

ted
12-05-2007, 03:21 PM
My thoughts and prayers go out to those killed in the Omaha Mall killings as well as their families and community.

JamesCurtis
12-05-2007, 03:34 PM
Agreed!!

Andyjaggy
12-05-2007, 03:56 PM
Agreed. We had the same thing happen here at Trolley Square mall here a few years ago. It's awful.

Darth Mole
12-06-2007, 02:01 AM
I agree it's dreadful news, but Neverko's right. This isn't the pioneering 16th century any more. You're supposed to be the most advanced nation on earth; your gun laws are an anachronism.

How many more Columbines and Nebraska's will you guys need? (For the record you're up to 49 deaths in mass shootings already in 2007. The whole of central Europe has suffered about 100 deaths over the last ten years)

archijam
12-06-2007, 02:27 AM
My condolences to the families of the victims - I had not heard about this.

Last week there was a 'un-movtivated' shooting here in Zürich, a young soldier using his own gun (conscription is mandatory in Switzerland). The whole country is talking about the right of their soldiers to bring their guns home (one victim, nonetheless horrible).

While I agree on the gun issue, I'm afriad this is no longer an american but a global problem.

j.

Iain
12-06-2007, 03:02 AM
I'm not sure the gun laws are entirely to blame. Better controls would help of course but these screwed up kids have been brought up with revenge and violence as part of their culture.
Films and TV make heroes of people who assault or kill those they don't like or feel have wronged them.

Add a disturbed psyche to that and you've got some dead innocents.
Terrible.

zardoz
12-06-2007, 03:11 AM
I think canada's laws are almost the same as U.S. (about guns) and they have a lot less killings. I'm glad our laws are different but I have to agree with Iain...I'm not sure if the gun laws are entirely to blame in the U.S.

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 04:22 AM
I'm not sure if the gun laws are entirely to blame in the U.S.
No, probably not. But it makes it so easier. Look at the alternative line of thought: "There are just more nutcases in the U.S." - you'd rather argue about laws then ;)

Then again, we've just had a case of a mother (apprently) killing her five kids...

Cheers,
Mike

IMI
12-06-2007, 05:53 AM
My thoughts and prayers go out to those killed in the Omaha Mall killings as well as their families and community.

Agreed. What a terrible thing. :(

I'm all for people being allowed to have non-automatic handguns for protection, and hunting rifles, but there's no reason any private citizen has for owning any type of assault rifle.

Iain
12-06-2007, 06:11 AM
I don't want to go into a gun debate on a thread paying respect to victims but I'm sure this could have been done with a non-automatic weapon.

When people go off the rails in this way, they probably don't distinguish between a gun that's for protection and one for mass slaughter. Both will do the job and they'll use whatever they have or can get.

Wonderpup
12-06-2007, 06:15 AM
It's often occured to me that if everyone in the US carried a gun in holster wherever they went , then things like the 9/11 hijackings would have been prevented simply because the moment the terrorists produced a weapon, they would have been faced by a fully armed group of passengers.

So maybe the problem is not too many guns but too few- if you're going to allow the public weapons then make it illegal to not be armed at all times, so at least when a crazy person starts shooting they won't last long.

At present it seems the only people armed are the madmen and the principle of the right to bear arms is only half heartedly followed. If the idea of allowing the ordinary citizen to bear arms is to deter crime then let everyone wear their guns on their hips, ready to be used at a moments notice.

IMI
12-06-2007, 06:18 AM
I'd agree. The guy was a nutcase. I just threw that about the assault rifles because it seemed fitting, and it's something I've believed in for a long time.

But yes, this shouldn't become a debate on US gun ownership policy.

Matt
12-06-2007, 06:43 AM
Very tragic, so soon after the last one, and near Christmas too.

Thing is, tightening gun laws will only do so much (still worth doing though) because these kind of people will find ways around the law anyway. They will just find some other means to carry out their insane plans, knives, their cars, who knows.

We have no right to bear arms in the UK and yet gun crime in London and Manchester seems to be on the increase, every other day we seem to hear about another young kid being shot in gang violence.

So it's not the answer I think people hope it will be.

cagey5
12-06-2007, 06:49 AM
It's often occured to me that if everyone in the US carried a gun in holster wherever they went , then things like the 9/11 hijackings would have been prevented simply because the moment the terrorists produced a weapon, they would have been faced by a fully armed group of passengers.

So maybe the problem is not too many guns but too few- if you're going to allow the public weapons then make it illegal to not be armed at all times, so at least when a crazy person starts shooting they won't last long.

At present it seems the only people armed are the madmen and the principle of the right to bear arms is only half heartedly followed. If the idea of allowing the ordinary citizen to bear arms is to deter crime then let everyone wear their guns on their hips, ready to be used at a moments notice.

Blimey charlie.

mattclary
12-06-2007, 06:50 AM
Time to do something about your gun laws?

You are right. If every adult was mandated to carry a gun, he probably would have only gotten one shot off.

Medi8or
12-06-2007, 06:58 AM
Right. One shot, everyone draws their weapons pointing them around to look where the shot came from. Now tell me no innocents will start shooting at eachother...

GandB
12-06-2007, 07:07 AM
Adding my condolences; I'd also like to say that if guns somehow dissappeared, they would merely be replaced with something else. Should we ban all chemicals that could produce an explosive effect too (also cheaper and easier to aquire)? How about all harmful chemicals that could be released into the populace?

If someone has the mindset that this person had, they'll find a way. Again, I don't want to turn this into a debate either; but I always hear how the US is at fault for our gun laws (or lack of them). I agree that we don't need automatic weapons to defend ourselves; but if we don't arm ourselves legally, the criminals will be the only ones carrying them.

-Keith

GandB
12-06-2007, 07:16 AM
Lost the ability to amend my messege above:

I'd also like to say that not everyone has the mental capacity (or temperment) to carry a firearm safely. There should be more emphasis on gun safety and marksmanship for those authorized to carry weapons in the public (talking about civilians), with semi-annual re-certifications; instead of a one-time check the box way of getting a permit.

*Pete*
12-06-2007, 07:19 AM
My critic against gunlaws, is simple..it wont protect anyone and increases the rate of accidental shootings.

But i do not think that a gunlaw, liberal or restrictive, would have prevented this from happening, people who are ready to do such acts, will find a way to do it....a schoolshooting just recently happened in Finland, and years ago..a busdriver in turkey took his life (the woman he loved, didnt love him) by driving the bus, filled with passengers down of a mountain.

its not the weapon that is the problem, altough it makes it easier...it is the people commiting these kinds of crimes.

and no..a weapon will not be a solution either....guns do not prevent crime, USA is evidence of that.

Darth Mole
12-06-2007, 07:22 AM
If there are two options - 1) everyone must carry a gun, no matter how old or clumsy or tense or afraid they are, and 2) tighten up laws so it's bloody hard to ghet hold of them in the first place...

I'd be for 2). (If I lived in the U.S. - which is the only time I've ever seen a gun close up).

Condolences to the families whose lives a have been ruined by this sad, pointless crime.

GandB
12-06-2007, 07:29 AM
tighten up laws so it's bloody hard to ghet hold of them in the first place...
Again, what are more restrictive gun laws going to do to curb illegal guns? It will do nothing, and the criminals will be the ones who are armed.

Nevermind all the machinists out there with the tools and know-how to make firearms from scratch.

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 07:56 AM
Right. A criminal cares not whether it's illegal to own a gun; he's already robbing stores and selling crack anyway.

A killing like this is truly a sad thing. Especially when you think of how any of those perfectly normal, average citizens could just as well have been your cousin or niece or wife or mother or you.

archijam
12-06-2007, 08:08 AM
It's often occured to me....

That's crazy talk. :(


There should be more emphasis on gun safety and marksmanship ...

See above.

Titus
12-06-2007, 08:16 AM
Guys, the gun didn't kill the people it was the nut carrying it. It's clear you need to take more care of the mental health of your people.

GandB
12-06-2007, 08:23 AM
See above.
Exactly what is crazy about ensuring people who have a permit to carry a firearm are proficient and safe with it?

Wonderpup
12-06-2007, 08:28 AM
A criminal cares not whether it's illegal to own a gun

The people that carry out these kind of random shootings are not criminals in the normal sense- they are 'ordinary' people who suddenly freak out- most of them have never been involved in crime or the criminal culture. Their access to weapons is via legal routes.

The reality is that the avaiability of more powerfull hardware allows a lot more damage to be done by disturbed individuals. Also, powerful weapons allow for far more dramatic outcomes, and in many cases these pople are in part motivated by a desire to make a dramatic statement- were they restricted to knives or clubs they might find the idea less attractive.

mattclary
12-06-2007, 08:33 AM
Actually, this guy was a convicted felon. It was illegal for him to own a firearm.

GandB
12-06-2007, 08:38 AM
Their access to weapons is via legal routes.
For the most part, I'd say you're right. However, as a gunstore owner, how are you supposed to tell whether or not a person appears to be having "problems" when selling them a firearm (even with a wait period).

Many of these case involves the perpetrator using a parent's or relative's firearm (many cases have also found that the firearm wasn't secured properly....ie, locked up). So much of the blame can be leveled on the adult who didn't secure their firearm properly (like taking out the bolt, and locking it and the ammo up seperately from the gun itself). That has resulted in many accidental shootings of minors, who think it's a toy.

I think Titus is also correct that there is something in the psyche of the person committing these acts. From what I've read, all the warning signs were there (the kid even showed an adult the firearm the night before the assault, but did nothing).

It's a complex problem that needs more attention at all levels....not just more restrictive gun laws, that usually go un-enforced.

I suspect this problem isn't soley an American problem, as many incidents don't make the news around the world.


were they restricted to knives or clubs they might find the idea less attractive.
...or it would cause them to be more creative/destructive, in the case of a bomb or chemical agent; which could have produced many more casualties in a setting like that.

-Keith

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 08:49 AM
I have a problem when governments restricts weaponry from citizens, because it voilates the Constitution (but it's been violated so many times it hardly matters anymore).

I have no problem with the government withholding weapons from felons, because that's a perfectly legal and valid thing to do; part of the government's role.

It is difficult for anyone to buy a weapon at a retail store. But a pawn shop? Half the stuff inside are stolen items anyway. Think the pawn shop owner's going to care who buys from him? He probably deals drugs in the back anyway.

But I still think that it is not the government's jurisdiction (under American law) to restrict weaponry being available to the public.

Listen: in the UK, in Germany, it's illegal to own a firearm.

But don't tell me that every single burglar, drug lord, murderer, and assaultist doesn't have one.

Laws don't produce murder. The culture does more than anything.

Matt
12-06-2007, 09:01 AM
Actually, this guy was a convicted felon. It was illegal for him to own a firearm.

I missed what happened to him, did they catch him or did he cowardly off himself?

Andyjaggy
12-06-2007, 09:04 AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

I almost think the issue of gun laws is a null point. If everyone had a gun we would be able to stop these crazy people before they could kill 10...15....20 people. However how much more random violence would we see from a simple argument that would normally end in a fist fight, ending up in a murder? You can't really say for sure what the numbers would be.

I think it is safe to say that even if America got rid of all their guns we would still see just as many violent acts of murder. Is Europe free of these kinds of things because you can't carry guns?

I think a good middle ground could be reached, make it tougher to get a gun, do more thorough background checks etc..... coming from a place like Utah where every fall half the state marches into the mountains to kill something, it's a very sensitive subject here. I've never been a hunter myself and have no desire to go kill something (that's what video games are for :)) but I can understand everyones point of view.

At any rate its still a tragedy. I feel sorry for the families of the victims. A terrible thing to happen especially around this time of year.

Andyjaggy
12-06-2007, 09:05 AM
I missed what happened to him, did they catch him or did he cowardly off himself?

As so often happens in these cases, he realized what he had just done and shot himself.

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 09:05 AM
Listen: in the UK, in Germany, it's illegal to own a firearm.

But don't tell me that every single burglar, drug lord, murderer, and assaultist doesn't have one.
No really. Also, if you look at the homicide statistics involving fireams the difference is substantial (7.8 times higher in the US) - but that may well be because we have less homicide in general. Which brings us back to the other question: If it isn't the gun laws, then why are there more nutcases in the US (as opposed to other countries on a similar level of industrialisation with much lower crime/homicide rates) ? ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Darth Mole
12-06-2007, 09:06 AM
Okay, I'll tell you just that: In the UK not every single burglar, drug lord, murderer, and assaultist has a gun. There. They might well have knives and be viscious b'stards, but they don't all own a gun.

Gun crime might be on the increase in the UK, but the number of firearm-related crimes is miniscule.

From the UK Home Office: "Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in the UK is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police."

Go here for some fun facts:

http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

cagey5
12-06-2007, 09:07 AM
Well the second amendment does come with the rider 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.... ' And a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary to maintain a free state, as I believe you have paid full time military personnel for that role, hence you have no right to bear arms.. ;)

archijam
12-06-2007, 09:11 AM
Exactly what is crazy about ensuring people who have a permit to carry a firearm are proficient and safe with it?

Marksmanship? I have never heard this word used in Australia (where I am from). Is that really a priority?

IMI
12-06-2007, 09:11 AM
As so often happens in these cases, he realized what he had just done and shot himself.

I don't think it's right to give him the benefit of something of a conscience, as if in remorse, overloaded with grief, he killed himself.
He had it planned. He had left a suicide note and wrote in it that he was going to be famous.

mattclary
12-06-2007, 09:12 AM
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the rate of home invasion burglary is MUCH higher in the UK than it is in the US. In other words, they come while you are home, because they know they have nothing to fear.

here you go:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:40Tz4-Mdn-YJ:futurewire.blogspot.com/2004/12/home-invasions-us-vs-uk.html+united+kingdom+%22home+invasion%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 09:13 AM
Okay, I'll tell you just that: In the UK not every single burglar, drug lord, murderer, and assaultist has a gun. There. They might well have knives and be viscious b'stards, but they don't all own a gun.

To that I say: so? If I'm going to get killed, I'm going to get killed, whether with a knife or a Glock.

Once I read that in Okinawa, where all guns were prohibited, teens resorted to using pencils to attack each other. Don't know about you, but I'd rather get shot than penciled to death.


As so often happens in these cases, he realized what he had just done and shot himself.

It's so depressing, isn't it, thinking about what a miserable life these guys must have. It's like happiness is a totally foreign concept to them.


Which brings us back to the other question: If it isn't the gun laws, then why are there more nutcases in the US (as opposed to other countries on a similar level of industrialisation with much lower crime/homicide rates) ?

I'm surrounded my lunatics! :D Driving to work today, in my car at 70 MPH, this car pulls out from the freeway shoulder and proceeds to go about 20 MPH. He never knew it but he was about 3 seconds from dying. Probably listening to talk radio or something.

Yes, there are many many lunatics and nutcases in America.

Iain
12-06-2007, 09:15 AM
I have a problem when governments restricts weaponry from citizens, because it voilates the Constitution

So what?
What's more important, public safety or out of date "rights"?

The number of guns in legal circulation in the US must have some relationship to the high number of shootings. It's obvious.

mattclary
12-06-2007, 09:16 AM
Well the second amendment does come with the rider 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.... ' And a well regulated Militia is no longer necessary to maintain a free state, as I believe you have paid full time military personnel for that role, hence you have no right to bear arms.. ;)

King George (not the one in power now) could have made that same claim 200+ years ago.

mattclary
12-06-2007, 09:18 AM
So what?
What's more important, public safety or out of date "rights"?


Freedom of speech is a pretty dangerous thing too. The government can speak for us, it will be much safer for everyone that way.

Andyjaggy
12-06-2007, 09:20 AM
I don't think it's right to give him the benefit of something of a conscience, as if in remorse, overloaded with grief, he killed himself.
He had it planned. He had left a suicide note and wrote in it that he was going to be famous.

Yes I was just reading online about the note. That makes it even sadder.

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 09:24 AM
Freedom of speech is a pretty dangerous thing too. The government can speak for us, it will be much safer for everyone that way.

I hate to seem slow, but do you really mean this?

IMI
12-06-2007, 09:43 AM
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. . At least I hope so. ;)

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 09:44 AM
I hope so too. That gave me a flashback of watching Blade Runner for some reason.:dance:

Iain
12-06-2007, 09:45 AM
Sarcasm comparing the right to bear arms to freedom of speech.

There is no hope.

IMI
12-06-2007, 09:48 AM
As for laws allowing the possession of reasonable firearms, such as handguns, I'm all for it, but if the day comes when they make it illegal to own a handgun, there's nothing short of a police raid on my home that's going to get me to give up the two handguns I own.

IMI
12-06-2007, 09:48 AM
I hope so too. That gave me a flashback of watching Blade Runner for some reason.:dance:

:lol:

Danic101
12-06-2007, 09:50 AM
To suggest that giving up our right to bear arms would make us safer is pure idiocy. It is a proven FACT that when a state passes concealed carry laws, the amount of violent crime, muggings, burglary goes way down. The founding fathers knew that the right to protect ones, safety, family, community and property from Whomever was and is a God Given right. For a country to remain free and proper the citizens of that country must have the right to protect themselves. I carry a firearm everywhere I go that it is legal too, and have had to pull it more then once. The criminals will always have guns, I cannot comprehend why anyone would think that the world would be a safer place if law abiding citizens could not own handguns or firearms of anykind.

Wonderpup
12-06-2007, 09:51 AM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

It's also true to say that 'nukes don't kill people. People kill people.' but a lot of people still seem to want to restrict the availabilty of nuclear weapons.

What is strange to an outsider is the fact that in a country where the right to bear arms is legaly enshrined, so many innocent people seem to be defenceless in the face of an armed assailant.

Iain
12-06-2007, 09:56 AM
What is strange to an outsider is the fact that in a country where the right to bear arms is legaly enshrined, so many innocent people seem to be defenceless in the face of an armed assailant.

Maybe they just don't agree with the concept of owning a tool for killing people.

This is a pointless argument and when 'god given' comes into it, it just becomes ridiculous.

Danic101
12-06-2007, 09:57 AM
What is strange to an outsider is the fact that in a country where the right to bear arms is legaly enshrined, so many innocent people seem to be defenceless in the face of an armed assailant.
The problem is many property owners post signs that prohibit carrying firearms on their property even if you have a concealed carry permit. By law you must follow these laws. Personally, I will not patronize any business that posts such signs.

mattclary
12-06-2007, 10:01 AM
Sarcasm comparing the right to bear arms to freedom of speech.

There is no hope.

If you are unarmed, who is to guarantee you get to keep these other rights? What if one day someone declares the rights that YOU actually care about to be "out of date"?

The ability of a man to protect himself is pretty big in my book. In case you haven't noticed, the police usually arrive after the fact.

Iain
12-06-2007, 10:15 AM
Freedom of speech is relevant today and always will be. Is it really so difficult to see the difference between giving any arsehole the righ to speak out and giving him the right to bear arms?

If someone was in a room with me and they had a gun on their person, I would feel uncomfortable. What might it take for them to lose control of their rational thinking? An argument, a fist fight, nothing at all? You just don't know.
If I lived somewhere that made me feel it was necessary to carry a gun, I would leave.

Ordinary people carrying guns is obscene and to not see that means you are so far gone there is no return.

Iain
12-06-2007, 10:16 AM
The problem is many property owners post signs that prohibit carrying firearms on their property even if you have a concealed carry permit. By law you must follow these laws. Personally, I will not patronize any business that posts such signs.

I wouldn't let you on my property.

Darth Mole
12-06-2007, 10:28 AM
I'm with Iain. Perhaps we're just both spoiled by living in a country where the most we ever really fear is, perhaps, a bit of a kicking by a mugger. Being approached by someone with a gun is utterly fantastical to me.

EDIT: And I wouldn't trust me with a gun, either. Not after a few drinks.

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 10:32 AM
Being approached by someone with a gun is utterly fantastical to me.
Same here... I haven't even seen one except at the belts of some police men - and obviously security at airports. And it's not like I live in a small town either.

Actually, I enjoy the right not to feel compelled to wear a gun and I consider that as part of my freedom.

Cheers,
Mike

Marcin Wuu
12-06-2007, 10:33 AM
My thoughts and prayers go out to those killed in the Omaha Mall killings as well as their families and community.

While youre at it, you might spare a precious moment of your thoughts and prayers to those nine children who died of starvation during the ten seconds that took you to write this message who havent even seen a mall in their whole miserable lifes, and whose prolonged painful deaths are not worth mentioning on a 3d app forum. You might also throw in countless others children dying of various diseases because theres no drugstore selling aspirine nearby, and even if it were they wouldnt be able to afford it anyway. Or if youre feeling exceptionally generous today you might even pray for all the needless death out there, for all the good it will do.

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 10:38 AM
The problem is many property owners post signs that prohibit carrying firearms on their property even if you have a concealed carry permit. By law you must follow these laws. Personally, I will not patronize any business that posts such signs.

I see what you are saying, and I partially agree, but it's perfectly fine to me if a private individual/company didn't want firearms on their property. I would either respect them and not carry a gun, or, if I particularly felt I had to have a gun there, I just wouldn't go.

All you Europeans have to realise that here in the States, a lot of us literally grow up with guns. Especially those of us outside metro areas like New York or Los Angeles. I've never shot anyone and I hope I don't have to. But if someone was trying to attack me or someone else, I'd definitely give them a shot or two.

I'm not carrying a gun by the way, so if you see me at Siggraph don't go berserk or anything. :D

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 10:40 AM
While youre at it, you might spare a precious moment of your thoughts and prayers to those nine children who died of starvation during the ten seconds that took you to write this message who havent even seen a mall in their whole miserable lifes, and whose prolonged painful deaths are not worth mentioning on a 3d app forum. You might also throw in countless others children dying of various diseases because theres no drugstore selling aspirine nearby, and even if it were they wouldnt be able to afford it anyway. Or if youre feeling exceptionally generous today you might even pray for all the needless death out there, for all the good it will do.

Um, I'd consider this slightly unreasonable. Just because we take note of a particular circumstance doesn't mean we're oblivious to all other pain and suffering. Actually if my memory serves me right, on these boards a few of us have been called "gentle souls".
:ohmy:

GandB
12-06-2007, 10:41 AM
Marksmanship? I have never heard this word used in Australia (where I am from). Is that really a priority?
It's a priority if you want someone to shoot the assailant, and not the person standing beside them. Would you prefer someone to fire in the "general direction" of an assailant?


What is strange to an outsider is the fact that in a country where the right to bear arms is legaly enshrined, so many innocent people seem to be defenceless in the face of an armed assailant.
If a few of them were armed, they wouldn't be defenceless would they?

While we're on the subject, did anyone hear if there was any kind of security in the mall?


Being approached by someone with a gun is utterly fantastical to me.
Then I guess you won't have any recourse when/if someone does someday.

-Keith

GandB
12-06-2007, 10:43 AM
I'm not carrying a gun by the way, so if you see me at Siggraph don't go berserk or anything.
I don't know man, you know how those Max/Maya people get :D

GandB
12-06-2007, 10:50 AM
To give credit to Lightwolf and his country; I've walked through downtown Mannheim at 2 in the morning before, without feeling threatened in the least (had to make it back to the barracks, didn't have enough money for the Strass). I've also had to go to the heart of downtown Detroit to the Federal building to take a US Customs test (in the middle of the day); did I have the same feeling of security? Not so much. ;)

Germany's a beautiful country that I hope to see again some day.

-Keith

GandB
12-06-2007, 10:50 AM
Double Post.

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 10:54 AM
Germany's a beautiful country that I hope to see again some day.
If you do... come to Stuttgart and we'll :beerchug: (but leave your gun in the US, will'ya please :D ).

Then there's also the topic of real threats vs. preceived threats, and in that respect I've always had the feeling we don't go as much over board here.
Hey, driving a car is still on of the most dangerous things you can do... with or without a gun...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 10:56 AM
All you Europeans have to realise that here in the States, a lot of us literally grow up with guns. Especially those of us outside metro areas like New York or Los Angeles.
So, people that don't live in the centres of crime are the ones having grown up with and wearing guns? Basically, the ones that need to protect themselves the least, right? (If you follow the protection logic to start with...)

Cheers,
Mike

zardoz
12-06-2007, 11:01 AM
well, I like to leave it to the police to carry guns and protect us.
I'm glad that in my country it's really hard to get a gun (legally). I'm pretty sure that illegally it's easy to get (this surely applies to every country in the world).
In my country (10 million people) when someone is murdered it's on the news...I don't know if in the US every single person who gets shot is on the news. What I mean with this is that it's really rare when that happens (usually with hunters on some accident or when one of them gets drunk and they all have some stupid fight about football).
It's a cultural thing. All these things also happen (IMHO) because in the US you have all those stereotypes like being popular and bullying...here we don't have that (yet). in the US people who don't meet the standard are put aside (fat people, not beautiful, popular, etc)...one day one of these kids goes crazy and things like this happens. here we don't have these stereotypes...I think this helps to integrates people better and prevents this kind of situation.

zardoz
12-06-2007, 11:04 AM
OFF TOPIC: Hi Mike. I'll be in Berlin this Monday. How's the weather now? cold right? What should I wear? (I won't take my gun...I promise! well...erhm...I don't have one).

GandB
12-06-2007, 11:04 AM
Hey, driving a car is still on of the most dangerous things you can do... with or without a gun...
I remember the first time I drove on the autobahn (heading to Heidlberg), I was pretty unnerved! :D When we came back to the states (spent 3 years in Germany), I felt like we were barely crawling along with huge gaps between cars. ;)

Not to mention your cars get FAR better mpg.

Iain
12-06-2007, 11:05 AM
All you Europeans have to realise that here in the States, a lot of us literally grow up with guns.


And why is that? Because your precious constitution has allowed the number of arms in the country to escalate to a ridiculous level and fall into the hands of those who need them in case they get robbed or in case the householder they rob has one?

Iain
12-06-2007, 11:07 AM
Not to mention your cars get FAR better mpg.

But do you know how much we pay for a gallon in Europe? It's curently £1 per litre here.:thumbsdow

Danic101
12-06-2007, 11:19 AM
And why is that? Because your precious constitution has allowed the number of arms in the country to escalate to a ridiculous level and fall into the hands of those who need them in case they get robbed or in case the householder they rob has one?


I consider myself blessed to have born in a country where firearms are prevalent. The Time I spent hunting, shooting Trap, Target shooting with my Father and then with my own children are some of my fondest memories. Both my two sons and my daughter have their concealed carry permits and everyone in my family has lifetime memberships to the NRA. This Crime could have been stopped by a gun, it was not caused by a gun.

Iain
12-06-2007, 11:27 AM
I consider myself blessed to have born in a country where firearms are prevalent. The Time I spent hunting, shooting Trap, Target shooting with my Father and then with my own children are some of my fondest memories. Both my two sons and my daughter have their concealed carry permits and everyone in my family has lifetime memberships to the NRA. This Crime could have been stopped by a gun, it was not caused by a gun.

Scary post #1

Do those memories have a bald kid playing a banjo on the porch?

GandB
12-06-2007, 11:31 AM
Typical stereotype #1


Do those memories have a bald kid playing a banjo on the porch?

IMI
12-06-2007, 11:31 AM
Scary post #1

Do those memories have a bald kid playing a banjo on the porch?


You're going to continue until you've insulted all of us who are or were into hunting, aren't you.
People in America like to do that. We have alot of land, you see, filled with forests and wild animals...

Iain
12-06-2007, 11:41 AM
Well, get out there an' kill 'em boy.

Danic101
12-06-2007, 11:43 AM
Scary post #1

Do those memories have a bald kid playing a banjo on the porch?

No it was a wonderful way to learn firearm safety and marksmanship.

Care to compare Bank Accounts?

IMI
12-06-2007, 11:46 AM
I guess that answers that.
I'm tempted to hurl insults back, but it really doesn't matter what you or those who think like you think. Your "progressive" attitudes and opinions don't mean a thing in the big scheme of things.

Iain
12-06-2007, 11:47 AM
It's not the hunting that scares me. It's rejoicing in gun ownership.

You know, this crime could have been stopped by a gun. It wasn't caused by a gun.

The gun is actually the good guy-it's them pesky people that use them for their intended purpose that are the problem.

Iain
12-06-2007, 11:48 AM
No it was a wonderful way to learn firearm safety and marksmanship.

Care to compare Bank Accounts?

I'm more prone to penis size challenges, myself.

IMI
12-06-2007, 12:06 PM
It's not the hunting that scares me. It's rejoicing in gun ownership.




Alright well the thing about "Well, get out there an' kill 'em boy." sounded kind of like a European person trying to mock someone he's stereotyped as redneck or sumthin'. I mean, something. ;)

THREEL
12-06-2007, 12:08 PM
Boy, there sure has been sooooo much discussion in this thread that's been :offtopic:.

This thread was supposed to be about keeping the victims, and their families, in our thoughts (if you do, or don't believe in God), and prayers (for those of us who do believe in God). Nothing more, nothing less. The thread wasn't posted to start a debate about gun control, religion, or anything else for that matter. It was just started by a man who has a heart for hurting people.

BTW--I'm pretty sure that this man has a heart for all of the other hurting people in the world. I'd, also, say that he most likely keeps all of these other hurting people in his thoughts and prayers as well.

AL

IgnusFast
12-06-2007, 12:09 PM
My thoughts and prayers go out to those killed in the Omaha Mall killings as well as their families and community.

Thanks for the thought - I was actually going to go to Westroads for lunch and some shopping, but got too busy at work. Kinda creepy, since we could see the helicopter circling the mall from my building and wondered what was going on.

Too bad this earnest thread has become an idiological nightmare in just a few hours, though. Not your fault, but disappointing all the same.

IMI
12-06-2007, 12:17 PM
Too bad this earnest thread has become an idiological nightmare in just a few hours, though. Not your fault, but disappointing all the same.

Many of us involved in the ensuing discussion did in fact express our sentiments and agree with the initial post.

It was only going to last so long anyway, and it will be the same in the news on TV as well. The gun debate always comes up whenever anything like this happens. Even as recently as last night there were people on CNN already making subtly sure that we knew it was one of those weapons that would be outlawed through more strict laws.

IgnusFast
12-06-2007, 12:24 PM
It's not like I'm pissed about it. Just disappointed. :)

THREEL
12-06-2007, 12:40 PM
Originally Posted by ted
My thoughts and prayers go out to those killed in the Omaha Mall killings as well as their families and community.


:agree:

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 12:51 PM
OFF TOPIC: Hi Mike. I'll be in Berlin this Monday. How's the weather now? cold right? What should I wear?It should be around 10° or so, maybe with some rain. Colder than Lisboa in February for sure :) (One of my favourite cities in the world).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 12:58 PM
Too bad this earnest thread has become an idiological nightmare in just a few hours, though. Not your fault, but disappointing all the same.
Why? I mean, seriously. Praying or whatever won't bring anybody back. Having a discussion on why it happened is juast about the best thing that can happen to stop something like that to happen again (not that it will... at least not at once).
That doesn't mean we ignore the sorrow and loss for those involved.

Cheers,
Mike

JBT27
12-06-2007, 12:58 PM
It's very sad, and I'm just sorry for all those lost and affected by it.

I've a vague recollection of Robert Heinlein once writing something to the effect that "An armed society is a polite society." I never agreed with it - I believe an armed society would be a very dangerous and paranoid one, like it isn't anyway.....

You can't help discussing it even in the wake of such terror and tragedy.

Julian.

Andyjaggy
12-06-2007, 01:04 PM
Do those memories have a bald kid playing a banjo on the porch?
Hey now. What's wrong with the banjo? :D

lilrayray77
12-06-2007, 01:29 PM
All you Europeans have to realise that here in the States, a lot of us literally grow up with guns. Especially those of us outside metro areas like New York or Los Angeles.

like to add my 2 cents if that is alright...
I live in Pennsylvania, about an hour and a half north of Philadelphia. Hunting is a big thing around, here, especially as the season has begun. I, however despite being raised around many many people who hunt and own 3,4,5, 10 guns, do not agree with this "right to bear arms."

Day after day I turn on the news to hear "...We have reached a record high number of shootings in Philadelphia today...". You cannot deny that these murders are connected to the right bear arms.

We cannot continue to remain under the false impression that we are some how more fit to carry guns; it simply isn't true. As a few of our European Wavers have pointed out, places where guns are not allowed have substantially lower homicide violence rates (please correct me if I misinterpreted)... furthermore, these same people who are unable to carry guns live perfectly happy lives.

We have set an example for many developing, and even developed countries in the past. I think it is about time to take from others, and change...


As for the tragedy, it is very sad and disappointing. My thoughts will be on the families of those who lost their lives.

*Pete*
12-06-2007, 01:29 PM
I have a problem when governments restricts weaponry from citizens, because it voilates the Constitution

intresting...what opinion would you have about liberal gun policy if the right to wear firearms would not have been specified in the Constitution?



historical note: In England football was banned and all males in the nation were forced, by law, into 2 hour archery practice every sunday.
this law, altough not constitutional, was passed becouse the nation was at war, and needed trained archers..plenty of them.
that law was later ignored when peace came and times changed.

historically, the right to wear firearms in USA comes from similiar causes, has the times changed enough to make that law obsolete or no?
the law isnt there to protect your hobby, or love for the weapons...it is there for the sake of national intrest....how does it apply in the view of national intrest today?

ted
12-06-2007, 01:44 PM
You cannot deny that these murders are connected to the right bear arms.

With all due respect, this is silly.
All these murders are far more connected to poor parenting and other social factors, so do we ban parents? And yes, that's a silly idea as well.

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 01:47 PM
I really don't feel like I even want to discuss it any more.

I haven't ever shot anybody. I hope I never will. I'm not some happy-jack redneck gun-toting fundamentalist dork like some of you seem to be implying. I'm not against guns. I'm not against people who dislike guns either. I just think that it doesn't matter.

If you don't feel like you need a gun, great. If you want one, great. It's none of my business and I was just putting forth my opinions.

Americans as a rule are very arrogant and forceful people. I try my hardest to not fit into that mold. That's why I think that if I continue any more in this discussion (the way it's going at the moment) I'll just end up being a jerk.

So.

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 01:49 PM
Americans as a rule are very arrogant and forceful people.
Now, that's what you said (and I'm not agreeing with you) - but if you really think so then in no way should you let them handle firearms ;).

SCNR...

Cheers,
Mike

IMI
12-06-2007, 01:57 PM
Americans as a rule are very arrogant and forceful people.

So.

Hey! I resemble that remark! :D

Iain
12-06-2007, 02:07 PM
All these murders are far more connected to poor parenting and other social factors,

They are Ted, you're right. But part of that social aspect you mention is gun culture and revenge culture. The kid who did this turned to his society's way of dealing with being ignored-lashing out. Means of doing so-what else, a gun.

For people to come on here and say "This is a terrible tragedy but you won't take my gun away from me. It's my right." is sad to say the least.

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 02:20 PM
If this kid hadn't have had a gun, he would have stuffed a pipe full of gunpowder and ignited it. Or anything: there's a multitude of ways to kill people.

Stooch
12-06-2007, 02:23 PM
Lets use a little logic here people. First of all guns dont kill people, people kill people. I like guns and enjoy shooting them tremendously. Yet i don't own a gun nor do i feel the need to carry it on my person. However if this need arose, id like to have the option to do so. I feel that guns are too easy to obtain illegally, this is really the problem here. Why is everyone just saying this without batting an eye? we should have severe penalties in illegal, untracked and undocumented weapons.

We should also be forced to endure very strenuous and regular gun control certification including instances of presence of innocent targets and other self defense scenarios. in order to earn our right to carry concealed weapons. and if you allow your gun to be used to commit a crime, you should expect to get your *** roasted in court and suffer severe penalties. Had the murderer cowards uncle that allowed access to his gun kept a trigger lock or a gun safe, this wouldn't have happened the way it did.

I feel that a car is 10x more deadly than any gun yet people drive their cars just fine and seem to be killing less people because they can. (its far easier and effective to ram into someone with your car than obtaining a gun and shooting them).

So if logically, our armed to the teeth population should be killing each other constantly ... but they dont. Cars dont kill people, people kill people.

gun laws are not the problem. if you want to pin this horrible incident squarely and only on gun laws then you are a shallow idiot. You are clearly looking for the easy answer to a very complex problem.

GandB
12-06-2007, 02:28 PM
How about this then: You can have my firearms when you disarm all the illegal arms holders out there; because until then, I'd rather at least have fair odds. Like it or not, the guns are here; they're not going to go away because we pass a law or two.

-Keith

Stooch
12-06-2007, 02:30 PM
was that post directed at me? if so, you need to brush up on reading comprehension.

RedBull
12-06-2007, 02:33 PM
If this kid hadn't have had a gun, he would have stuffed a pipe full of gunpowder and ignited it. Or anything: there's a multitude of ways to kill people.

Yes but it's the desire to kill that needs to be looked at...
Why is the world in such a complete disarray?

Why do humans suffer from so much depression, drug dependance, crime, war, violence, greed... etc....


Quote from MnM:

"When a dude's gettin bullied and shoots up his school
and they blame it on Marilyn, and the heroin
Where were the parents at? And now look where it's at!
Middle America, now it's a tragedy, Now it's so sad to see!"

It's really not hard to work out who's failed in this world! ;)

Lightwolf
12-06-2007, 02:34 PM
Like it or not, the guns are here; they're not going to go away because we pass a law or two.

Of course not, but Ian pretty much nailed it. If you grow up in a gun and revenge culture... how do you solve your problems? Go and shoot something or somebody. Which means we have a social/cultural problem here... and boy, that is a lot worse than gun laws.

There is of course the fact that with the large amount of legal fire arms it is a lot easier to get them illegally as well. If gun control makes it harder, what's wrong with that? It won't affect any gun enthuisasts at all - provided they are fit to own a gun. And if they're not so much the better.

Cheers,
Mike

GandB
12-06-2007, 02:35 PM
If I was directing it at you, I would have prefaced it with @Stooch. My reading comprehension is just fine.

RedBull
12-06-2007, 02:44 PM
Of course not, but Ian pretty much nailed it. If you grow up in a gun and revenge culture... how do you solve your problems? Go and shoot something or somebody. Which means we have a social/cultural problem here... and boy, that is a lot worse than gun laws.
Cheers, Mike

Indeed, and when the President of the USA, declares War on middle eastern countries for the sake of a little fuel, can we not expect their own people to declare war on each other when they don't get their baby bottle...

Monkey see, monkey do...
You would need a better Shepard, if you wanted smarter sheep.....

GandB
12-06-2007, 02:48 PM
Indeed, and when the President of the USA, declares War on middle eastern countries for the sake of a little fuel, can we not expect their own people to declare war on each other when they don't get their baby bottle...

Monkey see, monkey do...
You would need a better Shepard, if you wanted smarter sheep.....
Wow, I guess we should start insulting each other's countries and their leaders now, right?

I understand most everyone here thinks the USA is worthless, and it's people are mindless "sheep"; however untrue it may be. Just to let you know, there actually were people who voted against the current resident of the White House.

IMI
12-06-2007, 02:52 PM
I understand most everyone here thinks the USA is worthless, and it's people are mindless "sheep"; however untrue it may be. Just to let you know, there actually were people who voted against the current resident of the White House.[



It's OK, we do pretty well for a bunch of sheep running a worthless country. :D

ted
12-06-2007, 02:53 PM
And don't you be pickin on us Rednecks! :D

*Pete*
12-06-2007, 03:41 PM
How about this then: You can have my firearms when you disarm all the illegal arms holders out there; because until then, I'd rather at least have fair odds.

-Keith

Fair odds??...you must be kidding!!

someone, attemting to rob or kill you, is very unlikely to call you out of the saloon, let you get ready and then pull as you pull...the better and faster shooter wins.

what is more likely to happen, is that someone shoots you in the back without you ever knowing about it....bam, done, dead.
armed or not, the same end result..simply becouse you werent prepared.
If you think about it for a while, do you think you would even have the time to dial 911 in case of someone robbing you?..takes mere seconds, but you wont be able to even think about it untill it is too late.
a gun is an offensive weapon..always been, always will be.

i agree that these things will happen, with or without guns, its the people who do these things who are messed up.
but in my opinion..alcohol and cars dont match, civilians and guns dont match.
if ordinary people do not have guns, or alcohol..shooting accidents and car accidents would drop rapidly...people would still be shot by others, cars still would crash...but even a small improvement is good.

and as for americans being arrogant and forcefull, i disagree....my impression of americans is that they are actually really polite and kind.
its a nation with 300 million people, you will find all kinds of extremes there..looking at the media focus at the extremly religious, violent or stupid people in USA, you would think that the nation is full of them..but when you really meet a living breathing american, they turn out being nicer and kinder than your neighbours..

GandB
12-06-2007, 03:51 PM
someone, attemting to rob or kill you, is very unlikely to call you out of the saloon, let you get ready and then pull as you pull...the better and faster shooter wins.
In the context of what just happened; had someone been armed, then one or more of the victims might have not been killed. I did a study awhile back in my college years on an aspect of gun control in the States. In the 70's Washington D.C. (District of Columbia) introduced a law that made it illegal to carry a gun at all. That year the homocide rate rose a few digits (under 10%) nationwide.....in D.C. it rose over 200%. Care to guess the reason why?

*Pete*
12-06-2007, 05:46 PM
That year the homocide rate rose a few digits (under 10%) nationwide.....in D.C. it rose over 200%. Care to guess the reason why?

intresting...i would have expected the opposite.
even a 10% increase would have been alarming, but 200% is..well, war.

oh well...keep your guns, or even add some more.
i dont really care that much over the issue of american guns, i just wouldnt let my kids grow up in a place packed with weapons.
luckily, here in europe there is no demand for weapons at all, i never heard anyone complaining over not being able to own or wear guns without being a hunter, police or military.

kopperdrake
12-06-2007, 06:16 PM
When we were kids we used to play with guns. Well...strictly speaking they were twigs but when you're a kid what's the difference...just a thing to play with eh?

If you didn't have a twig it was fine, you could pick one up from any wood around, join in the fun.

Only problem was when the village fool wanted to join in, he just never understood the etiquette of twig-shooting, always used to throw big branches at us instead. Hurt if you got in the way.

warrenwc
12-06-2007, 07:12 PM
Hate to jump into this but the readiness to put so much trust in ANY government;
"guns in the hands of civilians" Scares the HECK out of me.

frantbk
12-06-2007, 07:23 PM
Let's just pass a law saying that no one in the USA can be fired a week before Thanksgiving and all firings can't happen until the first full week after New Years. I think it was stated on the news that the guy lost his girl friend and was fired from his job a couple of days before the shooting.

I think there is a cause and effect in play here that has more to do with then guns

ted
12-06-2007, 07:59 PM
While I can go on about pros and cons of gun control, and I enjoy debating things...
Since I started this, can I ask that out of respect, let's take this no further and just remember those lost and their families.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

Puguglybonehead
12-06-2007, 08:18 PM
What an extremely horrible and sad thing to happen, especially at this time of year. Never mind trying to link this the easy availability of guns. That's a whole can of worms on it's own. There was something going on here before this guy ever picked up a gun.

The story seems to be, that this guy was basically getting stepped on, in every aspect of his life, all at once. Who knows, he might have brought much of this upon himself, but still, to me it begs the question, where were his friends and family to help him out before he got to this point?

To me this is a symptom of a society that doesn't care about people who are in trouble. Most stories don't end like this. Instead, guys like this often die homeless and alone on some city street somewhere. I know because I see people with ruined lives on our city streets here every day. A tragedy either way.

Steamthrower
12-06-2007, 08:56 PM
There are three men, bums, who walk the train track route by my workplace every single day. I have seen these people while driving all over town. They were once people who led normal lives - no one is born a bum. And once, when walking back with a few of the guys from lunch, we passed a liquor store. One of the guys was wandering around in the parking lot, so drunk he could barely stand upright.

Where were these men before they became what they are? Did they have families? Did they belong to a golf club? Did they belong to a church or did they have a secure job at a bank somewhere?

When people murder others, and plan it out beforehand, it's nothing else than murder. It doesn't matter if you are so-called "mentally challenged". They're still a murderer.

Like the Virginia Tech shooter. He was a murderer - even though the media brought to light the fact that he was only just a poor racially oppressed man with mental trouble. Get a grip on the real fact: the guy was a disgusting murderer, plain and simple.

"Mentally challenged" and "economically depressed" are two terms for real, sad situations. But I know retarded and autistic people who are not murderers. Their disability does not drive them towards violence: because somewhere they have something with which they control themselves, despite the fact that they are like infants in a very real sense.

Excuses for people like these are lame. This man in Omaha was apparently down in the dumps. But...so? What on earth does it matter? If I feel depressed one day I don't go off and shoot someone.

Puguglybonehead
12-06-2007, 11:14 PM
Well, I'm not trying to make excuses for the guy, I just think his friends and family should have paid more attention to him before he got this twisted. To me, they bare a small part of the responsibility as well. It's not like like everything was all hunky-dory and then one day he decided to just do this out-of-the-blue. This guy was headed in a bad direction and the people close to him obviously chose to ignore it until it was too late. How many of you out there tend to 'avoid' a friend with a problem? It's uncomfortable to deal with somebody who's 'losing it', but if you don't try to get them some help, then they can turn into somebody like this. I'm basically trying to say that I think this was preventable.

zardoz
12-07-2007, 03:24 AM
the difference is that here when someone is stepped on or gets fired/dumped by girlfriend/etc they get depressed or in the worst cenario commit suicide. Around here people don't do this kind of stuff. We don't think of revenge or killing other people because it would be really hard to get a gun. In a country where is really easy to get guns it's easier for you to think that you could get some revenge because of what happened to you.

Bog
12-07-2007, 05:42 AM
It's tragic when something like this happens, but the immediate debate about gun control always makes me want to smash my head into the keyboard.

A gun is merely an object. Wittering on about how it makes it easier to kill someone with a gun is utterly irrelevant. There's no mystical or pharmaceutical component to a gun that makes people go barking mad.

Aside from the vague nausea induced by the unseemly haste with which so many people promptly politicise one deranged person's killing spree, and the overweening smugness of people in gun-controlled countries saying "That doesn't happen here, you should be like us" (a act similar in compassion to saying "You should have kept a backup, it's your own fault" to someone who's just had their hard-drive full of work stolen) it hinges on a fundamentally flawed concept.

That the regulation of objects can alter human behavior.

The Virginia Tech murders weren't stopped by gun controls. Hell, the 7/7 tube bombings weren't prevented by bomb controls in the UK!

The problem, in all cases, is serious wrong-headedness. The only way to combat that is to effort education, awareness, and trying to raise people who're rational and balanced, and who keep an eye out for the irrational and unbalanced, and who step in to try to help when they see it.

The constant bleating of "Ban guns!" is giving me a headache. Banning things is stupid, because it implies the object is to blame, rather than the individual.

Sil3
12-07-2007, 05:48 AM
When an object that is made with only ONE pupose: KILL !!!

then yes, ban guns for all...... how many of those Shooters would kill loads of people with a Knife or a Hammer?

They both are regular day to day objects can can be used to kill, diference is, since they were not made with the purpose to kill people, killing lots of people with it on a small amount of time (the thing the Shooters all seem to want) they mostly wont get used by those... no why not? Because Guns are easier to do it, thats why Guns should only be allowed on armed forces and police...

Iain
12-07-2007, 05:52 AM
I for one, didn't shout "ban guns". I blamed other aspects of the boy's background but you can't ignore there is a gun problem. The people who came on to a thread which offered condolences over a gun related incident and tried to glorify and defend the ownership and use of them is weird to me.

It seems the authorities aren't ignoring there is a problem. From the BBC News:

"The incident is the latest in a series of mass shootings in the US, which have reignited the debate in the US about gun ownership.


The Supreme Court will consider Americans' right to bear arms early next year for the first time in nearly 70 years."

Sil3
12-07-2007, 06:07 AM
The Supreme Court will consider Americans' right to bear arms early next year for the first time in nearly 70 years."[/I]

OMG the whole world (read USA) will end if they forbid guns to everybody and their dogs, but really getting rid of the 18-19th Century mentality is much needed... Wild West is long gone in case no one have noticed ;)

GandB
12-07-2007, 06:17 AM
While the Supreme Court is debating our bearing arms, they should also debate the ability for parents to discipline their children via a good spanking....which is now considered child abuse.

The U.S. Government doesn't want us to discipline our children (talking it out with a 6-year old doesn't always work); but when they grow up with problems, because they weren't disciplined, the parents are to blame.


then yes, ban guns for all...... how many of those Shooters would kill loads of people with a Knife or a Hammer?
And yet again; if not the gun....then they will use something else, like a bomb or a chemical agent. Why is it so hard to understand that if you pull all the guns out of the hands of LEGAL gun owners, the killing will still continue.

If this individual couldn't get the gun he used from a family member; then he would've found another way. I love how everyone else thinks their country is superior to the US when it comes to violence amongst the populace. We have our fair share of violence at sporting events; but I don't see it anywhere near the scale that I do at certain events in the UK. We can compare apples and oranges all day long; but no one's going to change their mind.

So I'll say it again; if the killer didn't have a gun that day...he would have found another way. It seems blowing up subways and trains is popular among people with different ideals and those having a "bad day". I wish it wasn't so; but until we start to do something about the warning signs (it's clear that we recognize them), this trend will continue. My opinion, of course.

-Keith

IMI
12-07-2007, 06:21 AM
I believe in a partial banning of some kinds of guns.
I don't care who you are or what you do, unless you're on a SWAT Team, there's no reason on Earth why you should need to have an M-16 or an AK47, or a fully automatic Glock pistol...or a bazooka.
I know lots of people with guns. I have two (legally registered) handguns, an antique .22 caliber target pistol, and a shotgun, and I know alot of other people with various hunting rifles and "normal" handguns, and none of the people I know have ever shot anyone else. I do have a friend who scared away a would-be burglar, though.

But anyone who feels a need for owning an assault rifle of any sort probably has something other than defense on his mind. Not necessarily murder, maybe he's some kind of Survivalist nutball, or something... but there's a real good chance anyone wanting an AK47 has a screw or two loose somewhere.

archijam
12-07-2007, 06:30 AM
"You should have kept a backup, it's your own fault"

Strange, I said that to someone yesterday.

Bog
12-07-2007, 06:46 AM
Why would I trust a government employee with an assault rifle or an explosive device more than I would a private citizen? Goodness me, that's some wooly thinking. Come to that, why would I trust a government?

No, I mean seriously. Why?

Sil3
12-07-2007, 06:53 AM
I love how everyone else thinks their country is superior to the US when it comes to violence amongst the populace. We have our fair share of violence at sporting events; but I don't see it anywhere near the scale that I do at certain events in the UK. We can compare apples and oranges all day long; but no one's going to change their mind.
-Keith

What you see in Europe among Hooligans is retarded... those guys only go to football to provoque violence, they dont care about football at all, now imagine if all those had guns at will...it would be a bloodbath every game... hummmm thinking of it, they should have guns, then go out to a desert and shoot himselfs at will :)




So I'll say it again; if the killer didn't have a gun that day...he would have found another way.
-Keith

Sure he would... but probably would not haved killed that many because:

- Guns are easier to acess and they work as advertised.

- Making Bombs takes time and some effort.

- Chemical agents are more restricted and I assume big majority of persons do not know how to make them.






It seems blowing up subways and trains is popular among people with different ideals and those having a "bad day". I wish it wasn't so; but until we start to do something about the warning signs (it's clear that we recognize them), this trend will continue. My opinion, of course.

-Keith

You cannot possibly compare Terrorism that is pre meditated and used to get people to fear, with someone that pick ups a Gun and goes shooting people because he simply fliped out, not the same thing.

One can be irradicated/controled with proper measures, the other cannot because its erratic, anyone can go Postal... knowing this, the best is to prevent free Gun acess to the majority of people.

Bog
12-07-2007, 06:55 AM
You cannot possibly compare Terrorism that is pre meditated and used to get people to fear, with someone that pick ups a Gun and goes shooting people because he simply fliped out, not the same thing.

One can be irradicated/controled with proper measures, the other cannot because its erratic, anyone can go Postal... knowing this, the best is to prevent free Gun acess to the majority of people.

I'm honestly not sure how you're differentiating one kind of bendy-headed murderous insanity from the other. Come to that, I don't think you can.

And if it can be eradicated or controlled with "proper measures", why hasn't it been?

Your argument, I'm afraid, makes no sense.

IMI
12-07-2007, 06:57 AM
Why would I trust a government employee with an assault rifle or an explosive device more than I would a private citizen? Goodness me, that's some wooly thinking. Come to that, why would I trust a government?

No, I mean seriously. Why?

I didn't say I was endorsing people such as those on SWAT having those weapons, just that they're the ones who have a genuine legitimate purpose for having them.
I don't know though, but I doubt they're allowed to keep them in their personal possession when not on the job.

As for why to trust government... good question. I sure don't. ;)

Iain
12-07-2007, 07:00 AM
parents to discipline their children via a good spanking....which is now considered child abuse.

The U.S. Government doesn't want us to discipline our children (talking it out with a 6-year old doesn't always work); but when they grow up with problems, because they weren't disciplined, the parents are to blame.


Are you complaining this is a right you should have? Maybe it is.

My children get disciplined with a stern talking to and if that doesn't work (and quite often-you're right-it doesn't), they get something taken away from them, a priviledge or a possession.

I'm not trying to seem superior-I just have no desire to hit my kids, no matter what they do.
Nobody had to force legislation on me for that but we're all different and we are all brought up differently, I suppose.

IMI
12-07-2007, 07:13 AM
Oh I'll add that although I firmly believe people should have the right to own handguns for defense, id have to say I wouldn't want to live in a society where half the people are walking around wearing a holster with a .45 in it.

Part of my job necessitates that I regularly pi$$ off many people, every day. Not intentionally, mind you, but with everyone carrying a gun, my odds go way down. ;)

Iain
12-07-2007, 07:19 AM
Part of my job necessitates that I regularly pi$$ off many people, every day. Not intentionally, mind you, but with everyone carrying a gun, my odds go way down. ;)

Imagine being a traffic warden (I don't know what they're called in the US-they hand out tickets for illegal parking.)

They get assaulted here all the time, (as do nurses, rail workers and civil servants for some reason). They'd need kevlar suits if every belligerent arse going around had a gun.

GandB
12-07-2007, 07:19 AM
those guys only go to football to provoque violence, they dont care about football at all
Those troubled teens only go to malls to provoke violence, they don't care about the shoppers at all....;)


now imagine if all those had guns at will...it would be a bloodbath every game...
And getting trampled to death is better than getting shot? Again, apples and oranges.


- Making Bombs takes time and some effort.

- Chemical agents are more restricted and I assume big majority of persons do not know how to make them.
Takes no effort at all; simply ram a half-full (stolen) fuel truck into a packed crowd. I could make a small "noise-maker" out of a can, a candle, a straw, flour and a match. Apparently it's not hard to find this stuff on the internet either.

As far as chemical agents go; there were a few bombs set off in Iraq that were nothing more than concentrated chlorine...still did significant damage.


My children get disciplined with a stern talking to and if that doesn't work (and quite often-you're right-it doesn't), they get something taken away from them, a priviledge or a possession.
I'm saying that parents should have options (reasonable ones) when disciplining their children. Normally my two kids listen when I use a stern voice (try to keep the yelling down to a minimum). We also use the "take a priviledge or possession away"; then they have to earn them back. However, occassionally a quick smack on the bottom is called for (usually in a when in a public place....and even then they are taken to the car or restroom); I don't condone spanking that resembles "beating" your child though.

Children are different from each other; what works for one, may not work for another. I agree that talking and reasoning with your children should be a first recourse though.

-Keith

Sil3
12-07-2007, 07:20 AM
I'm honestly not sure how you're differentiating one kind of bendy-headed murderous insanity from the other. Come to that, I don't think you can.

And if it can be eradicated or controlled with "proper measures", why hasn't it been?

Your argument, I'm afraid, makes no sense.

So you say that IRA Terrorism in UK is the same as it was in the 80s? Or did it almost stoped after a conjuction effort between UK and US police agencies (since the fundings where coming from IRA people in US).

In fact, I cant even recall the last time I heard about IRA... but I dont live in UK.

Bog
12-07-2007, 07:25 AM
I've come across plenty of belligerent uniformed arses with guns right here in the UK. From idiots with their fingers on the triggers of their MP5s in Reading Station during rush hour, through to one uniformed mungo who dropped my brand-new laptop onto concrete whilst attempting to X-Ray it, and his colleage shoved the muzzle of his weapon in my face when I tried to catch it.

If I'm not to be trusted with one, I don't want governments to be trusted with them either. Sadly, as governments generally can only rule by force of arms, I see a force disparity as both immoral and a gateway to tyrrany and oppression. You really can't have it both ways.

Bog
12-07-2007, 07:28 AM
So you say that IRA Terrorism in UK is the same as it was in the 80s? Or did it almost stoped after a conjuction effort between UK and US police agencies (since the fundings where coming from IRA people in US).

In fact, I cant even recall the last time I heard about IRA... but I dont live in UK.

The IRA got awfully serious about peace processes and stuff shortly after 9/11. The current brand of terrorism we're getting is a lot bloodier, a lot nastier, and if being carried out by loons who don't even value their own lives, let alone anyone else's. There's currently no proven way of managing that kind of threat.

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 07:55 AM
Why would I trust a government employee with an assault rifle or an explosive device more than I would a private citizen? Goodness me, that's some wooly thinking. Come to that, why would I trust a government?

No, I mean seriously. Why?

Fair point - but private individuals just compound the problem. There is simply no justification for them owning such potentially destructive weapons. It's the C21st not the Wild West.

But like it or not six shooters are here to stay. The gun lobby are making obscene amounts of money out of other people's misery :(

Steamthrower
12-07-2007, 08:15 AM
If I'm not to be trusted with one, I don't want governments to be trusted with them either. Sadly, as governments generally can only rule by force of arms, I see a force disparity as both immoral and a gateway to tyrrany and oppression. You really can't have it both ways.

What a man. Hennessy-Barrett .50 cal.

:D

Andyjaggy
12-07-2007, 08:32 AM
OMG the whole world (read USA) will end if they forbid guns to everybody and their dogs, but really getting rid of the 18-19th Century mentality is much needed... Wild West is long gone in case no one have noticed ;)

Clearly you haven't been to the west in a long time :) There are some pretty backwards places here. I know of several families who survive the winter by what they kill in the fall during the hunt.

Bog
12-07-2007, 09:01 AM
Fair point - but private individuals just compound the problem. There is simply no justification for them owning such potentially destructive weapons. It's the C21st not the Wild West.

But like it or not six shooters are here to stay. The gun lobby are making obscene amounts of money out of other people's misery :(

I still run into a mental brick wall over this one. I know what you're saying - but it's predicated on needing permission from someone, with the word "justification". As long as you're not interfering with someone else, then morally governments - or individuals - shouldn't be telling you what to do. If we're not considered adult enough to be able to have various things without promptly slaughtering people in job lots, then we're obviously not old enough to drive, vote, drink or indeed have access to anything more dangerous than a toothbrush - and even that should be on a string so mummy can pull it out if we start choking on it.

No, I realise I'm howling in the dark here, but it comes back to a simple, unassailable fact. Things are just things. If you take metal and wrap it around a rapidly combusting material, then in the wrong hands, it's fatally dangerous. This is true for guns, and it's true for cars - which kill an awful lot more people per year.

Whether individuals "should" or "should not" have guns, and what kind of guns they "should" be "allowed" is a moot discussion. Banning objects blurs the simple fact of personal responsibility. Giving a government - any government - the power to dictate what we may or may not posess when no crime has been committed, and no intention of crime can be proven - is an abominable abdication of personal liberty. The fact that every single government on the planet commits this shameful act to a greater or lesser extent is something that occasionally drives me to a rage. And rightly so!

Who the dickens is someone I've never met and who doesn't know me from a bar of soap to pre-judge what I may or may not be responsible with?

And, for that matter, where is the justice in banning items in job lots because of the occasional murderous nutter? It simply doesn't make sense. Recently here in the UK, a man was stabbed and left to die in his front garden. During the sentencing, the judge was lamenting the availability of knives. Like it was the knife's fault that the person was stabbed. The sheer, terrifying flaw in this thinking - that in some way an inanimate object is responsible for a human action - is shamefully obvious to anyone giving it a second's objective thought.

Crimes should be punished, and to the full extent of the law. Absolutely. But should ownership of an object be a crime? Absolutely not. Not until you can prove without a doubt that the owner intends to use that object to interfere with someone else. Otherwise, you're into the fluffy thinking that I've just lamented, and it's right up there with leprechauns, pixies and Santa Clause.

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 09:07 AM
I am so sick of people standing behind the very outdated 2nd amendment on the firearms issue. The argument is that if we take away guns from law abiding citizens, only the criminals will have the guns. Well thank you Jed and Cletus for that extremely well reasoned and thought out arument. Now if you don't mind, have a mountain dew and have a seat.
First of all, how do you think these most of these retards that commit gun related crimes acquire these guns in the first place? Yes, that's right, usually from guns that went through legal means first and so they were either stolen directly from a "law abiding citizen" or bought through black market means. Fact is, less guns on the street with these so called law abiding gun owners, less guns for criminals to acquire in the first place.
I actually don't think guns should be banned all together but we need gun control laws that make sense. They also need to close loopholes such as the ability for any retard to walk into a gun show and walk away with a frirearm ready to appear at your local college campus or shopping mall. The NRA is constanly screaming foul for any kind of gun control. What kind of organization supports laws that kill thousands upon thousands of people each year? They have perverted the 2nd amendment so far from its original purpose. The 2nd amendment does not provide the right for every American to own a firearm, it states that a regulated militia of the people have a right to bear arms. The NRA sent Charleton Heston to one of their Conferences to speak in Denver shortly after the Columbine incident despite being asked by the Mayor to stay away. They are a shameless and vile organization, IMHO of course.

Here's a link with some thoughts on the 2nd amendment: http://www.guninformation.org/

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 09:15 AM
Banning objects blurs the simple fact of personal responsibility.
Absolutely. But personal responsibility has never really worked, in a way it is as much of a myth as communism (nice in theory but fails in practice).

Giving a government - any government - the power to dictate what we may or may not posess when no crime has been committed, and no intention of crime can be proven - is an abominable abdication of personal liberty.
I like how "the government" is some kind of monster out to get us. Most of us live in more or less democratic societies. We are the government. If you don't trust it, then you don't trust society as a whole, then you don't trust the next man either. Might as well give up and live alon up in the mountains (and don't even think about relationships - they involve politics) ;)

At least that's the extreme. The hard part is balancing out the extremes.

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
12-07-2007, 09:16 AM
Otherwise, you're into the fluffy thinking that I've just lamented, and it's right up there with leprechauns, pixies and Santa Clause.

http://seeker.searchforsanta.com/

Steamthrower
12-07-2007, 09:18 AM
Most of us live in more or less democratic societies. We are the government.

We are the government? I don't think so. As an American, legal adult, able to vote, do you realise that the chances of my vote affecting a presidential election are 8 out of 10 raised to the 8,000th power?

No more are democracies democracies. They are socialistic with a facade of democracy.

Iain
12-07-2007, 09:21 AM
Who the dickens is someone I've never met and who doesn't know me from a bar of soap to pre-judge what I may or may not be responsible with?


With all due respect Bog, that to me is a ridiculous question. It's not about you. Everything has to be taken to the lowest common denominator, the risk.

Judgements and laws are made for public safety and not for bureaucracy's sake, but for yours and mine. By people to whom we entrust that responsibility. And, generally speaking, it works.

Weapons are illegal to have because they are designed to inflict harm. The fact that you would not inflict harm with one is irrelevant (although why you would have it on you is another matter.) Nobody can know for certain that you wouldn't.

We can't physically beat our children because there are people who will take it further than any acceptable level and cross the line into abuse.

Heaven forbid we ever become a nanny state but at the moment, we are very far from it.
You can't have a society with different laws to match different types of people, never mind every individual. But you do need laws, so how would you do it?

Bog
12-07-2007, 09:21 AM
"The Government" (or "gubmint") isn't some kind of monster. Anymore than the individual is. The flaw in the thinking is that, by some mystic transformation, what's unacceptable for one person to do (Take your money, lock you in a cage for years, or even kill you for having a thing they disapprove of in this instance) becomes acceptable or even desirable for a group of people to do.

What's the minimum size group you need for this transformation, anyway? Do you need a flag, or just a big enough horde?

Also, as governments are composed of people (all of whom are cheerfully shovelling out this fallacy that they're in some way not just a group of flawed, easily-distracted, gullible and often ambitious individuals), they're susceptable to all the silly bugger-ups that individuals are - only on a far grander scale by dint of it's size.

And if this whole "We Are the Government" thing is true, then how the hell did the UK end up in Iraq? It was a massively unpopular move that the majority of the population didn't seem to want to happen. Democracy only works when the government picks up the phone.

With regards to personal responsibility never really working, I'd like to see the paperwork on that. I don't recall it ever having been given much of a try - certainly not as much as communism! I concur, though, that extremes are generally to be avoided as undesirable, but I'm not sure how you can apply gradualism to whether or not you're responsible for your own existence.

*edit*

Iain, you've successfully identified part of the problem - that the laws have to be written for the lowest common denominator. This is why I believe that laws should only punish actions, and that individuals should be left to their own devices until they show illegal intent.

This conversation really is best suited to comfy chairs and large glasses of good whisky, mind, so I might bow out at this point - I've had my say, and in keeping with the "y'ain't the boss of me" nature of my posts, I shan't insist that anyone agree with me.

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 09:37 AM
We are the government? I don't think so. As an American, legal adult, able to vote, do you realise that the chances of my vote affecting a presidential election are 8 out of 10 raised to the 8,000th power?

Erm, you do realize that voting isn't the only way to participate?

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 09:42 AM
With regards to personal responsibility never really working, I'd like to see the paperwork on that.
Easy, drinking and driving. How many idiots do you know that drink an drive. And don't tell me that is reponsible in any way... except if your own your own, on your own pice of land and 101% sure there is nobody else around.

This is why I believe that laws should only punish actions, and that individuals should be left to their own devices until they show illegal intent.
We can see how well that works since 2001, don't we? And we now have measures that go way overboard in infringing our rights.
It is one of those security vs. restriction issues again.


This conversation really is best suited to comfy chairs and large glasses of good whisky, mind, so I might bow out at this point ....
Oy, grab a glass, sit down and come back ;)

Cheers,
mike

oldtekerr
12-07-2007, 09:42 AM
Erm, you do realize that voting isn't the only way to participate?

Cheers,
Mike

do you mean revolution? or running for office? Because other then voting they are the only other options that I am aware of.

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 09:48 AM
do you mean revolution? or running for office? Because other then voting they are the only other options that I am aware of.
Well, I did say participate... not abolish ;)
Sure, get involved, join a party, start your own, whatever. If your problem with how things are currently going are big enough then make an effort. If you can't be bothered then the problem ain't big enough ;)

Cheers,
Mike

tektonik
12-07-2007, 10:08 AM
I think canada's laws are almost the same as U.S. (about guns) and they have a lot less killings. I'm glad our laws are different but I have to agree with Iain...I'm not sure if the gun laws are entirely to blame in the U.S.

ahhhh come on dude!

here in canada we can't bear arms at all !!! unless you have received direct death threats and a judge must allow tou to do so!

you can have hunting gear but locked at all times
no hand guns

here we also have

social security
universal health care and pills care
we can drink at 18
everyone smokes pot with no fear of eternal damnation
we can f*ck the way we want :)
we have same sex marriage
god doesn't bless us when we sneeze :)
god doesn't help us either we help ourseleves...
like any free human in the 21st century

so all this plays a role but we still have our share of freak accidents especially in Montreal where we had 3 shootings in universities in 15 years

Polytecchnique 1990
Concordia ? with Valery Fabrikant
Dawson College 2007

i would venture out to say that we are far more FREE than any US citizen...

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 10:14 AM
i would venture out to say that we are far more FREE than any US citizen...
Yeah, but last time I checked you were still left wing, liberal, communist pinkos, right?

I wonder where that puts us :D

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 10:34 AM
That settles it, I'm moving to Canada.

tektonik
12-07-2007, 10:35 AM
Yeah, but last time I checked you were still left wing, liberal, communist pinkos, right?

I wonder where that puts us :D

Cheers,
Mike

_________________
blessed are the sheep, for they shall inherit the grass


hey Lightwolf
well grass or weed...there is a fine line between the 2

right now we are in deep sh*t with our righ winging conservative government but i am sure it is a phase...

i am ashamed at our refusal to sign Kyoto... really ashamed... so kudos to europe for their... europeanness :)

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 10:38 AM
right now we are in deep sh*t with our righ winging conservative government but i am sure it is a phase...
Hehe... hey, compared to other governments they're still liberal, left wing communist pinkos (I just love typing that :D ) - as is our right wing government.

Cheers,
Mike

Steamthrower
12-07-2007, 10:55 AM
I've in general found Canadians to be liberal, left wing communist pinkos, but not all Canadians are liberal, left wing communist pinkos. Just some are liberal, left wing communist pinkos. Most liberal, left wing communist pinkos are in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, the really large cities. Liberal, left wing communist pinkos aren't as prevalent in the less-populated areas of Canada, like the northern arctic reaches of British Columbia where liberal, left wing communist pinkos never even want to go, because there's no other liberal, left wing communist pinkos to provide them company.

Those liberal, left wing communist pinkos. :D

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 11:20 AM
I've always found it amusing that calling someone liberal can be taken as an insult. How silly. Rush Limbaugh does it all the time. But then he's a filthy conservative.

CMT
12-07-2007, 11:29 AM
I've always found it amusing that calling someone liberal can be taken as an insult. How silly. Rush Limbaugh does it all the time. But then he's a filthy conservative.

who's usually right.... *runs away*

zardoz
12-07-2007, 11:32 AM
ok sorry tektonik, my bad.

here we also (almost a quote):

can have hunting gear but locked at all times
hand guns (you need a permit...that takes time to get, unless you have certain jobs like being a judge where you are allowed to have a gun for protection)

here we also have

social security
universal health care and pills care
we can drink at 18 (but I see kids with 14 drinking in pubs and nobody cares)
everyone smokes pot with no fear of eternal damnation
we can f*ck the way we want
we do not have same sex marriage (but it won't take long)
god doesn't bless us when we sneeze
god doesn't help us either we help ourseleves...(we are a laic country...so...no god)

a few more:

we have nudity or swearing on the media without being censored (and we also have all the violence too)
if we make some naked babe in 3D we don't have to open a thread with 'nudity' in the title (or else all the north americans will be shocked)...
I could add a few more...
like any free human in the 21st century

and that I remember we never had a shooting like these...

tektonik
12-07-2007, 12:23 PM
well good for you and your fellow free citizens ZARDOZ

i was more talking about the US that seems to be in a transition phase right now... like a falling empire maybe :)

and to quote CMT "If you think you are beaten, you are...."
well... the U.S. is beaten in IRAK but they will try for a long time not to admit it... they can wait for a long time cuz the Halliburtons of this world will pillage and feed on the petroleum of the irakians to pay for their occupation...

anyway i'm off to work :thumbsup:

*Pete*
12-07-2007, 12:27 PM
Why would I trust a government employee with an assault rifle or an explosive device more than I would a private citizen? Goodness me, that's some wooly thinking. Come to that, why would I trust a government?

No, I mean seriously. Why?

Having guns in civilian hands wont protect you from the goverment anyway...the goverment has tanks and attackhelicopters....all bulletproof.
Having a gun, will not protect you from the goverment..so if the goverment still didnt assault its own population, i quess you could trust it atleast a little bit.

If you mean about trusting people in the military or police to handle the weapons they have legally, without going out on a killingspree?..well, there is always a chance for individuals doing that, but they will be brought down by other armed goverment employees, such as the police.

as for trusting the goverment for speaking the truth at all times......nah, dont do it ;)

*Pete*
12-07-2007, 12:40 PM
Hey Zardos...canada sounds like scandinavia, except for your rightwing conservative goverment.

you want to see liberal commie pinkos....we got them, more so than anyone else in the world, but then again, our crime rates are not much to mention about..i dont know anyone who been robbed for example, but i heard stories of others getting robbed.

Cageman
12-07-2007, 01:29 PM
As for laws allowing the possession of reasonable firearms, such as handguns, I'm all for it, but if the day comes when they make it illegal to own a handgun, there's nothing short of a police raid on my home that's going to get me to give up the two handguns I own.

Why on earth do you have guns?

I think it is pretty scary, and obviously something is very wrong, when normal people have to resort to buying guns in order to feel safe.

Someone said guns doesn't kill people, people kill people... well, guns do help, don't they?

vpii
12-07-2007, 01:41 PM
You all act like your **** does not stink, before casting stones look in your own back yard.

Really most remarks here look like anti american comments, this was just a soap box for some of you to vent them

Blubs from the net:

Before we Europeans get too smug about our supposedly more civilized disarmed societies, perhaps we should remember how many people European governments murdered over the the course of the 20th Century. Murders that would have been impossible (or at least much, much harder and costly) to carry out, had the victims been as well-armed as the Americans are.
-------

'NOW I'LL BE FAMOUS'.
If there is one thing he has succeeded in doing, it's just that. Look at the amount of media coverage generated. He will probably feel it was worth it to be remembered and not just forgotten about.

All we're waiting for now is the next deluded individual to step up to the plate for his fifteen minutes of fame.
--------
Mother accused of killing 5 children

BERLIN - Five children between the ages of 3 and 9 have been found slain in a house in northern Germany, police said.

Police said that their mother was a suspect and had been sent to a psychiatric facility. They ascribed the motive to the 31-year-old woman's mental illness.

The killings occurred in the town of Darry, in the state of Schleswig-Holstein.
---------
Finn news:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2841038.ece

Steamthrower
12-07-2007, 01:41 PM
Why on earth do you have guns?

I think it is pretty scary, and obviously something is very wrong, when normal people have to resort to buying guns in order to feel safe.

Someone said guns doesn't kill people, people kill people... well, guns do help, don't they?

But you don't get it. The means by which people kill others is irrelevant. Bubble wrap can kill people. Sharp mechanical drafting pencils can kill people. Sticks can kill people, for crying out loud: should we ban sticks? I dare say a slew of people have been killed by clubs. If someone wants to kill someone, trust me, he can find a way. The easiest way to kill masses of people would not be with guns. It would be something oddball, like hijacking a riverboat and driving it into a bridge at rush hour.

oldtekerr
12-07-2007, 01:46 PM
But you don't get it. The means by which people kill others is irrelevant. Bubble wrap can kill people. Sharp mechanical drafting pencils can kill people. Sticks can kill people, for crying out loud: should we ban sticks? I dare say a slew of people have been killed by clubs. If someone wants to kill someone, trust me, he can find a way. The easiest way to kill masses of people would not be with guns. It would be something oddball, like hijacking a riverboat and driving it into a bridge at rush hour.

but all those things that you listed take a lot more then pushing a little button to kill someone! Guns make killing not personal and much easier to do.

I figured you more of a sword guy anyway, inigo...:D

Cageman
12-07-2007, 01:46 PM
ahhhh come on dude!

here in canada we can't bear arms at all !!! unless you have received direct death threats and a judge must allow tou to do so!

you can have hunting gear but locked at all times
no hand guns

here we also have

social security
universal health care and pills care
we can drink at 18
everyone smokes pot with no fear of eternal damnation
we can f*ck the way we want :)
we have same sex marriage
god doesn't bless us when we sneeze :)
god doesn't help us either we help ourseleves...
like any free human in the 21st century

so all this plays a role but we still have our share of freak accidents especially in Montreal where we had 3 shootings in universities in 15 years

Polytecchnique 1990
Concordia ? with Valery Fabrikant
Dawson College 2007

i would venture out to say that we are far more FREE than any US citizen...

Hehe...Canada sounds very much like Sweden (very restrictive gunlaws etc), except that we still haven't had any shootings in schools...yet *knock on wood* Maybe some other swedes my correct me if I'm wrong! While there are gangs that have guns, they have yet to target any civillians (as far as I can recall). They shoot at eachother though, which doesn't really bother me.

*Pete*
12-07-2007, 01:46 PM
Someone said guns doesn't kill people, people kill people... well, guns do help, don't they?

someone posted a link earlier, that included a nice counter to "guns doesn't kill people, people kill people"...it was "glasses dont see, eyes see".
does it mean that a person with bad vision is not getting help by his glasses?...of course not, and guns DO help people to kill people.

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 01:58 PM
But you don't get it. The means by which people kill others is irrelevant. Bubble wrap can kill people. Sharp mechanical drafting pencils can kill people. Sticks can kill people, for crying out loud: should we ban sticks? I dare say a slew of people have been killed by clubs. If someone wants to kill someone, trust me, he can find a way. The easiest way to kill masses of people would not be with guns. It would be something oddball, like hijacking a riverboat and driving it into a bridge at rush hour.

Bubblewrap wasn't invented to make a hole in a living creature where guns are. If you use bubble wrap to kill someone, you're misusing the product, but shooting a animal (and I include humans in the broad definition of animal) with a gun is using the product what it was intended for.
The other thing is, if the guns were taken away and all we were left with is bubble wrap, mechanical pencils, and sticks, I can guarantee you there would be a lot less murders. Why? Because guns take the mess out of killing someone, you don't have to actually get your hands dirty, and for most people, that makes the difference between a severe beating and blowing someones head off with a firearm. You think someone is going to walk into a mall with bubble wrap or even a knife and start slashing people? Maybe, but I guarantee you the body count is going way down.

Cageman
12-07-2007, 01:58 PM
But you don't get it. The means by which people kill others is irrelevant. Bubble wrap can kill people. Sharp mechanical drafting pencils can kill people. Sticks can kill people, for crying out loud: should we ban sticks? I dare say a slew of people have been killed by clubs. If someone wants to kill someone, trust me, he can find a way. The easiest way to kill masses of people would not be with guns. It would be something oddball, like hijacking a riverboat and driving it into a bridge at rush hour.

I was once engaged in a fight with a guy that had a knife... I kicked him in his balls and while he was going down I hit him in his face. He lost his concious for a few seconds so I took his knife and threw it as far as I could into the lake. He got onto his feet and ran away. I think he learned a lesson. :)

If that guy would have had a gun, I would probably not be here, enjoying life and my work.

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 02:00 PM
If that guy would have had a gun, I would probably not be here, enjoying life and my work.

Exactly what I was just getting at in the previous post. And good for you for making the guy a farmer (by giving him a few "achers").

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 02:16 PM
Really most remarks here look like anti american comments, this was just a soap box for some of you to vent them



Hmm, what is this anti-american slogan I see thrown around all the time with no thought to how it is used? I'm an American and I don't agree with this nations gun laws, does that make me anti-American? No. Because having an opinion and voicing it is one of the great ideas that this country was founded upon(I say idea because it's not really a right because you certainly do not have the right to say or do anything you want, even in this country). I don't see why someone from another country not agreeing with the laws makes them anti-American either. They just like the way things are being done elsewhere. If I don't like the grand slam breakfast at Dennys, it doesn't make me anti-Dennys. I just don't like their special.
I notice that all the people that are so called red blooded Americans and who get all weepy eyed every time they hear the star spangled banner and who get offended so easily when other people criticize how things are done here, are the ones who are always telling you what you can't do. You can't burn a flag in protest, you can't criticize the presdident, you can't oppose what you see as a senseless war. I mean, is this the land of the free or is it the land of the free as long as the guy as it jives with your own personal outlook?

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 02:28 PM
I don't see why someone from another country not agreeing with the laws makes them anti-American either. They just like the way things are being done elsewhere.
It's a bit like criticizing LW, isn't it? Just because you crit it doesn't mean you don't like it... often to the contrary.

Cheers,
Mike

P.S. @vpii: I did mention the incident in Germany in one of my initial posts, because that happened just about a day earlier or so - so it was all over the news.
And yes, the fact that this country was responsible for some of the biggest atrocities in human history has surely changed our society (Germany) - and it has also changed Europe a great deal for, mostly the better. Turn enemies into friends to prevent wars.

Andyjaggy
12-07-2007, 02:35 PM
Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I don't love America.

Well said Hrgiger.

CMT
12-07-2007, 02:38 PM
I don't own a gun and don't really care to either. But the right to own one shouldn't be spoiled by what the criminals do with it.


Bubblewrap wasn't invented to make a hole in a living creature where guns are. If you use bubble wrap to kill someone, you're misusing the product, but shooting a animal (and I include humans in the broad definition of animal) with a gun is using the product what it was intended for.

If you use a gun to kill an innocent person who isn't threatening you with bodily harm, that's misusing the product as well.

Most people who buy guns don't want to hurt anyone. They want it for protection or for their own enjoyment with target practice, or hunting in the case of rifles.

Doing some quick research, in the US, there's roughly 5 times as many car fatalities than murders. Should the government step in and ban civilian car useage?

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 02:43 PM
Doing some quick research, in the US, there's roughly 5 times as many car fatalities than murders. Should the government step in and ban civilian car useage?
The question is... which is more restricted? Gun laws or driving laws ?;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 02:44 PM
Just because I don't like Bush doesn't mean I don't love America.
Can I as a foreigner say the same thing? (Love as in "pancakes" that is - which is pretty much how I fell about my country as well...).

Cheers,
Mike

IMI
12-07-2007, 02:59 PM
Why on earth do you have guns?

I think it is pretty scary, and obviously something is very wrong, when normal people have to resort to buying guns in order to feel safe.

Someone said guns doesn't kill people, people kill people... well, guns do help, don't they?


I didn't buy mine to "feel safe". I bought the handguns to keep at home for that 'just in case' possibility.
I bought the security alarm system to "feel safe".
I don't live in a dangerous area at all. It's around ten miles to the nearest 'problem area', so to speak, but I'll be damned if I'm going to get robbed in the middle of the night by some crackhead looking for some stuff he can pawn.

Although I do have to admit if someone like that breaks in and tries to steal something, I'm not going to use the gun unless it looks like he's armed too. I'd get far more satisfaction beating the crap out of him and then seeing him go to jail alive. :D

Steamthrower
12-07-2007, 03:09 PM
I didn't buy mine to "feel safe". I bought the handguns to keep at home for that 'just in case' possibility.
I bought the security alarm system to "feel safe".
I don't live in a dangerous area at all. It's around ten miles to the nearest 'problem area', so to speak, but I'll be damned if I'm going to get robbed in the middle of the night by some crackhead looking for some stuff he can pawn.

Although I do have to admit if someone like that breaks in and tries to steal something, I'm not going to use the gun unless it looks like he's armed too. I'd get far more satisfaction beating the crap out of him and then seeing him go to jail alive. :D

I would agree here. I think that shooting someone would be my last resort...and as long as it was just me, I would try to disable him instead of kill (I am a dead shot by the way!).

If I had a wife or other dependents, on the other hand, and the guy was armed: I would have no hesitation in blowing him out the wall. None at all. But that's because I view that protecting others has a different value than protecting myself.

Andyjaggy
12-07-2007, 03:13 PM
Doing some quick research, in the US, there's roughly 5 times as many car fatalities than murders. Should the government step in and ban civilian car useage?

I was wondering how long it would be until someone came out with the car accident analogy :) When guns are a necessity to go about your daily lives then it will be a logical argument. Until then (and let's hope that day never comes) the argument just doesn't hold up.

CMT
12-07-2007, 03:49 PM
The question is... which is more restricted? Gun laws or driving laws ?;)

Cheers,
Mike

Aren't gun laws more restricted? Seems a bit backwards.... or maybe they are working somewhat if the deaths from guns is lower. Depends on your perspective I guess. Of course, more people own cars than guns, I'm sure. But still, more people die from car accidents.

Anyway, the main arguement going on here is that guns in the hands of some people are using them to kill other people. Therefore some say they should be banned. But it's the same situation with cars (albeit accidentally), but they kill more people each year.

Gun laws aren't as restricted as they could be, but I don't think banning them is the way to go. That would directly conflict with the Constitution. Instead, people should inherently have the right to bear arms.... until it's demonstrated that a person shouldn't have that right anymore. The background checks that go on now are a good start. I think Giuliani's views on gun control is a good way to go. Focus the laws on the criminals, not the guns.

"The Second Amendment is about as clear as it can be. It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable. And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on the state-by-state level." - R. Giuliani.

I totally agree with this statement..... but it doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for him. :)


I was wondering how long it would be until someone came out with the car accident analogy :) When guns are a necessity to go about your daily lives then it will be a logical argument. Until then (and let's hope that day never comes) the argument just doesn't hold up.

Well, guns have been around for a couple hundred years and actually were a necessity back then if you wanted to survive in some places. Cars haven't been around nearly as long. But are they really a necessity? Many people in cities and other countries ride a bike to work. How necessary is it to have a car? So we can sit comfortably in a cushy seat with 4 cup holders, radio blasting, guzzling gas and polluting the air we breath so we can get to work faster?

So why not just go with public transportation regulated by the government? Well, that sounds just as unconstitutional to me as banning guns.

THREEL
12-07-2007, 03:53 PM
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so."
- Adolf Hitler

"The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."
- Benito Mussolini

"The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues and tends to foment uprisings."
- Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese dictator, August 1588

"All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every responsible opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore anyone who does not belong to one of the above-named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government."
- SA Oberfuhrer of Bad Tolz, March, 1933

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution


"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
- John F. Kennedy

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn."
- Gandhi, “Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth”


And my personal favorite:

"Blaming guns for crime is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnel's obesity."
- Travis McGee


BTW--The WTC/Pentagon terrorists that murdered over 3,000 people used utility knifes & commercial aircraft to kill all of those innocent people.

*Pete*
12-07-2007, 03:57 PM
Aren't gun laws more restricted? Seems a bit backwards

to get a drivers license, you will have to pass a long training, pay loads of money for it, and then pay even more to buy a car, for which you have to pay lots of taxes every year, you have to have an insurance for the car as well...and, on top of that you get your car towed away if you park wrong, or you get to pay money for that mistake, you can loose your driverslicense if your catched driving in the opposite lane, or breaking any of the other rules of traffic...not to mention speed limitations and so on..i can go on for ever.

a gun...well, you fill a simple paper, wait while its processed and then you can buy your gun, and thats it.

*Pete*
12-07-2007, 03:59 PM
BTW--The WTC/Pentagon terrorists that murdered over 3,000 people used utility knifes & commercial aircraft to kill all of those innocent people.

today, knifes are banned in aircraft.

CMT
12-07-2007, 04:01 PM
a gun...well, you fill a simple paper, wait while its processed and then you can buy your gun, and thats it.

You forgot a few things.... If you shoot someone (not in self defense) you go to jail. If you fire the weapon and someone else hears it, expect a visit from the police wanting to know why. Can't conceal one in most states. Can't wave one around in public... I can think of many others, too.

But what happens during the processing? What does it look for? Criminal background maybe?...

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 04:03 PM
I don't own a gun and don't really care to either. But the right to own one shouldn't be spoiled by what the criminals do with it.

If you use a gun to kill an innocent person who isn't threatening you with bodily harm, that's misusing the product as well.

Most people who buy guns don't want to hurt anyone. They want it for protection or for their own enjoyment with target practice, or hunting in the case of rifles.

Doing some quick research, in the US, there's roughly 5 times as many car fatalities than murders. Should the government step in and ban civilian car useage?



First of all, your argument that the criminals spoil the fun for the rest of the law abiding citizens is fairly suspect. Why don't we make drugs legal as well? It's just those crack smoking criminals that ruins crack smoking for the rest of us that just wish to do a little smack and watch reruns of leave it to the Beaver so we can giggle when we hear June say "Ward, weren't you a little hard on the beaver last night?". I know I'm mixing up my drugs about which ones make you giggle and which ones just make you crazy, but the point is still the same.
No, guns were meant to put holes in things. Living or otherwise. It doesn't suggest in a manual somewhere in the gunbox what you put holes in, it is simply a hole maker. Period. Sometimes those holes are made in vital organs. Sometimes beer cans. Whichever.
Should we ban civilian car usage? I don't know. Should we ban cancer because it's a real killer too? You do realize that you're making a comparison between a major component of our infrastructre in modern day society (cars) to what amounts to at best for most people a toy (guns), albeit a fairly deadly one. Do we even need to continue to go, or drive if you prefer, down that road? Besides, your questioning my motive to ban guns when in fact, I never stated my wish for that to be the case. I said we needed some serious gun laws to protect the public more from the sloppy handling and movement of guns from their original "legal" sources.

THREEL
12-07-2007, 04:04 PM
today, knifes are banned in aircraft.

I'm sure guns were banned in the mall in Omaha as well.

Didn't seem to make a difference there.

Andyjaggy
12-07-2007, 04:07 PM
Well, guns have been around for a couple hundred years and actually were a necessity back then if you wanted to survive in some places. Cars haven't been around nearly as long. But are they really a necessity? Many people in cities and other countries ride a bike to work. How necessary is it to have a car? So we can sit comfortably in a cushy seat with 4 cup holders, radio blasting, guzzling gas and polluting the air we breath so we can get to work faster?

So why not just go with public transportation regulated by the government? Well, that sounds just as unconstitutional to me as banning guns.

Well I don't know how it is in Ohio but public transportation sucks big time here. There is no way I could survive without a car here. Well I shouldn't say no way but it would be tremendously more difficult for me. But anyway we are getting off topic here, not that we weren't allready :D

hrgiger
12-07-2007, 04:12 PM
The not so amusing part about the 2nd amendment is that when it was written, we were worried about foreign invaders. Now, it's ourselves people feel the need to protect themselves from. It's too bad some laws can't seem to keep up with modern society and change with the times...

Andyjaggy, I can tell you that here in Ohio public transportation leaves a lot to be desired. At least in Columbus, it might be a little better in CMT's neck of the woods.

IMI
12-07-2007, 04:14 PM
"The Second Amendment is about as clear as it can be. It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable. And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on the state-by-state level." - R. Giuliani.

I totally agree with this statement..... but it doesn't mean I'm gonna vote for him. :)


You might not get the chance to vote for him if he keeps up the way he was last week at the debate. ;)

I more or less agree with that too, although I'm not so sure that the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted as saying exactly that we as individuals have that right. For all the brilliance in planning Jefferson, Franklin, and so on had, that something such as the second amendment was left sort of vague, or open for too much interpretation, is sort of an incongruity.
Although I have no doubt as to what they meant, based on other writings and attitudes of the time.
Still, it could have been worded better.

CMT
12-07-2007, 04:15 PM
First of all, your argument that the criminals spoil the fun for the rest of the law abiding citizens is fairly suspect. Why don't we make drugs legal as well? It's just those crack smoking criminals that ruins crack smoking for the rest of us that just wish to do a little smack and watch reruns of leave it to the Beaver so we can giggle when we hear June say "Ward, weren't you a little hard on the beaver last night?". I know I'm mixing up my drugs about which ones make you giggle and which ones just make you crazy, but the point is still the same.
No, guns were meant to put holes in things. Living or otherwise. It doesn't suggest in a manual somewhere in the gunbox what you put holes in, it is simply a hole maker. Period. Sometimes those holes are made in vital organs. Sometimes beer cans. Whichever.
Should we ban civilian car usage? I don't know. Should we ban cancer because it's a real killer too? You do realize that you're making a comparison between a major component of our infrastructre in modern day society (cars) to what amounts to at best for most people a toy (guns), albeit a fairly deadly one. Do we even need to continue to go, or drive if you prefer, down that road? Besides, your questioning my motive to ban guns when in fact, I never stated my wish for that to be the case. I said we needed some serious gun laws to protect the public more from the sloppy handling and movement of guns from their original "legal" sources.


Well, people don't go around shooting themselves, so I don't know why you're making that comparison. I'm sure if people did that as much as they do drugs, there would be a ban on guns as well.

And, you're right, the purpose of guns is to put holes in things. But the gov't (and our personal morals) say that shooting another, outside of anything but self defence, is misuse and criminal.

And I never said that you prefer a ban. I may have assumed it though from your previous statements and by you suggesting that you'd rather move to Canada.

*Pete*
12-07-2007, 04:21 PM
You forgot a few things.... If you shoot someone (not in self defense) you go to jail. If you fire the weapon and someone else hears it, expect a visit from the police wanting to know why. Can't conceal one in most states. Can't wave one around in public... I can think of many others, too.

But what happens during the processing? What does it look for? Criminal background maybe?...

i wont give up!!!:devil:

gun vs car.

shoot someone (not in selfdefence) = jail.
Drive on someone = jail.

fire the weapon =police asks questions.
honk the horn needlessly = neighbours throw things at you..heheh, no, its also illegal and can cost you money if caught with that.

Cant conceal gun = ok.
cant avoid paying insurance for the car = caught with that, theyll remove your licenseplate.

you wont get a gun if you are an ex-criminal, you wont get a driverslicense if police has removed it from you or the rights to get it.

we arent comparing the same things, really...but cars are more regulated than guns, simply becouse they are more used.
even here, we have a thick book explaining what is not allowed to do in traffic, but only a few words about guns..mainly, your not allowed to wear/own them unless it is a part of your job.

now, knowing that cars are more regulated (by amount of rules), how about comparing practical uses of cars and guns? ;)

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 04:22 PM
I'm sure guns were banned in the mall in Omaha as well.
Didn't seem to make a difference there.
Was it enforced? I mean, you have metal detectors in just about every shopping mall even in the middle east nowadays...

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 04:26 PM
Well I don't know how it is in Ohio but public transportation sucks big time here. There is no way I could survive without a car here.
I can't argue that - even though I have no clue about the Ohio public transport system. But in general public transport seems to be in bad shape in the US... not surprising if you look at the distances that need to be covered in some areas.
However, you can't blame the idea for the bad implementation.

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 04:32 PM
Well, people don't go around shooting themselves, so I don't know why you're making that comparison. I'm sure if people did that as much as they do drugs, there would be a ban on guns as well.

Bad comparison. Unlike guns, drug are primarily self destructive by nature. Drug abuse isn't the problem but the social status due to the criminal circumstances. It is not the drugs that kill but people ;)
In that case, drugs should be just as legal as guns if all people are concerned about is the government taking away freedom. And that goes for a lot of other issues as well.

Cheers,
Mike

IMI
12-07-2007, 04:37 PM
I think before we worry about legalizing illegal drugs we should worry about making prescription drugs more affordable. ;)

No, that's not a left wing communist pinko thing either. It's the wimps at the FDA that hold back development and drive up prices.

(EDITED)

Safety this, lawsuits that... if there's one freedom we should have is the right to immediate access of experimental drugs and the ability to take our chances without Nanny Sam worrying about if it's safe or not.

THREEL
12-07-2007, 04:38 PM
Was it enforced? I mean, you have metal detectors in just about every shopping mall even in the middle east nowadays...

It's not enforced in the Middle East all the time either. In 1988, I walked through 5 metal detectors in the Cairo Airport with a Kershaw Knife which is a large Swiss Army type knife that I had left in my pocket accidentally, and I was not stopped by one airport security guard. I meant to leave it in my baggage, but I forgot.

Now, I know this was before 9/11, but things slip through airport security all the time.

Lightwolf
12-07-2007, 04:43 PM
Now, I know this was before 9/11...
Things have changed a lot since then... and security im '88 certainly was a joke (hey, that's almost a generation ago).

Cheers,
Mike

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 06:23 PM
I don't own a gun and don't really care to either. But the right to own one shouldn't be spoiled by what the criminals do with it

But why would anyone want to own something that is specifically designed to blow someone elses brains out? I've yet to read a convincing rational argument on this board. :question:

Maybe human evolution really is stuck somewhere between the Stone Age and the Wild West.

PS My toy ray gun doesn't count...

Stooch
12-07-2007, 06:34 PM
But why would anyone want to own something that is specifically designed to blow someone elses brains out? I've yet to read a convincing rational argument on this board. :question:
.

who says guns are made to blow brains out? you can blow many things out with it. its a versatile tool. By the way you can also blow someones brains out with many other implements. a hammer, a tire iron, a baseball bat. should we make those illegal too?

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 06:38 PM
who says guns are made to blow brains out? you can blow many things out with it. its a versatile tool. By the way you can also blow someones brains out with many other implements. a hammer, a tire iron, a baseball bat. should we make those illegal too?

Heh... I can just picture mad shopping mall killer on the rampage with a tire iron.

Red_Oddity
12-07-2007, 06:52 PM
Things have changed a lot since then... and security im '88 certainly was a joke (hey, that's almost a generation ago).

Cheers,
Mike
Yes, and right now it has changed for the worst.

Last time i went with an airplane (about one and a half month ago, from Schiphol Airport) i got scanned (as in they literally scan you using a machine, so basically they see you in your birthday suit), then some unfriendly unschooled d!ckwhad that works for a 3rd party security office still strip searches you and then they dump you with 300 other people (who are pissed off at that point aswell) in some too small room at which point your flight has a 2 hour delay aswell all for 'your own safety'. (The delay was because they found a 'suspicious' package onboard, probably a box of tampons someone left on the toilet.)

Really, if flight companies would offer me 2 choises when paying 1200 euros for an uncomfertable 10 hour flight which are 1; get treated like a colombian drug lord who has packed enough fire power in his hand luggage to re-enact Rambo to boot, all in the false pretense of personal safety, OR, 2; get on the plane that does no checks and take your luck with the terrorists, i think i seriously would take option number 2.

IMI
12-07-2007, 06:57 PM
But why would anyone want to own something that is specifically designed to blow someone elses brains out? I've yet to read a convincing rational argument on this board.

Maybe human evolution really is stuck somewhere between the Stone Age and the Wild West.

PS My toy ray gun doesn't count...

I thought I gave a decent rational argument a page or two back. And my reasoning is probably in there with the majority of gun owners.
If wanting one or two around for the purpose of possibly having to defend myself and my family and possessions isn't rational and convincing i don't know what could be.

Your argument is based solely on the [false] assumption that most of us are buying them with the intent of blowing someone's brains out.

If I want to do that I'll use the shotgun, since it'd be more efficient than the .38. :D

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 07:04 PM
I thought I gave a decent rational argument a page or two back. And my reasoning is probably in there with the majority of gun owners.
If wanting one or two around for the purpose of possibly having to defend myself and my family and possessions isn't rational and convincing i don't know what could be.

So you really are still living in the Wild West? Anarchy sounds like fun till you get hit by a bullet.

Stooch
12-07-2007, 07:08 PM
have you anti gun nuts heard of sport shooting? there are many kinds. people buy guns so that they can go to the range and have some fun. much the same way one goes to a bowling alley and throws a 12lb ball at some pins. of course you could also use the said bowling ball to blow someones brains out or defend your family if needed.

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 07:10 PM
have you anti gun nuts heard of sport shooting? there are many kinds. people buy guns so that they can go to the range and have some fun. much the same way one goes to a bowling alley and throws a 12lb ball at some pins. of course you could also use the said bowling ball to blow someones brains out or defend your family if needed.

Oooh great... go shoot a small defenceless furry animal with your six shooter. That's versatile ;)

IMI
12-07-2007, 07:11 PM
So you really are still living in the Wild West? Anarchy sounds like fun till you get hit by a bullet.

Well, see it as you will, it makes no difference to me. Obviously you already have your mind made up, and aren't interested in "rational and convincing" arguments.

But considering that, you probably ought to outright say that, since you look silly pretending to be interested in the rationale.

No, I don't live in the "Wild West".

Hey, I drive really well, too. I haven't had an accident in 22 years. I guess I can just rip out the seatbelts since they're uncomfortable anyway.

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 07:14 PM
... And have you ever had the misfortune to encounter a mass murdering psycho bowling ball killer, Stooch?

ted
12-07-2007, 07:19 PM
... And have you ever had the misfortune to encounter a mass murdering psycho bowling ball killer, Stooch?

As a matter of fact, YES! Arseholes kill several people every year throwing them off overpasses.
Nuff said.

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 07:25 PM
'In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week.'

Nuff said.

IMI
12-07-2007, 07:34 PM
Nuff said.

Excellent. Thank you. I was hoping someone would solve this one before the next hot topic came up.

Although it wouldn't surprise me if fast food killed more people than that.

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 07:41 PM
Excellent. Thank you. I was hoping someone would solve this one before the next hot topic came up.

Although it wouldn't surprise me if fast food killed more people than that.

Glad you're enlightened IMI. If a bullet doesn't get you, the lard will.

vpii
12-07-2007, 07:44 PM
News from the net and the notes the killer left:

Hawkins was a troubled teenager who spent four years in a series of treatment centers, group homes and foster care after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002. He had recently broken up with a girlfriend recently and lost his job at a McDonald’s.

“I’ve just snapped. I can’t take this meaningless existence anymore I’ve been a constant disappointment and that trend would have only continued,” he wrote.

Hawkins added, “I love you mommy. I love you dad,” and expressed love for several other people. He told them to remember the good times they had.

“Just think tho I’m gonna be (expletive) famous,” he wrote.

--------

He wanted to be famous just like any other mass teen killer in history.
You all talk here about guns and banning them, the real problem is the media and thru there reports make the killer famous. The sad thing is all our freinds in Europe get news thru there media about events all around the world. Here in the US news for the most is only about the US. Sometimes I think it is to keep the people in the dark. Regardless the killer was using a AK 47 that is not even sold here, just black market. So in this case gun laws would have not helped.

THREEL
12-07-2007, 07:54 PM
Things have changed a lot since then... and security im '88 certainly was a joke (hey, that's almost a generation ago).

It still is a joke. They run tests all the time that airport security seems to fail.

IMI
12-07-2007, 07:55 PM
You all talk here about guns and banning them, the real problem is the media and thru there reports make the killer famous. The sad thing is all our freinds in Europe get news thru there media about events all around the world. Here in the US news for the most is only about the US. Sometimes I think it is to keep the people in the dark. Regardless the killer was using a AK 47 that is not even sold here, just black market. So in this case gun laws would have not helped.

While I would agree with you that the media does do its part to help these psychos win their fifteen minutes of fame, news is news and it's also big money for the news stations.
I rank the mainstream US media, in general, about third down on my top ten list of slimeball institutions, for this reason among others, but we can't censor it, and shouldn't.

As for why we don't get much world news here - well, we do - the big things - but also, we have so much going on here every day it doesn't leave much space in the time slots. ;)

vpii
12-07-2007, 08:02 PM
While I would agree with you that the media does do its part to help these psychos win their fifteen minutes of fame, news is news and it's also big money for the news stations.
I rank the mainstream US media, in general, about third down on my top ten list of slimeball institutions, for this reason among others, but we can't censor it, and shouldn't.

As for why we don't get much world news here - well, we do - the big things - but also, we have so much going on here every day it doesn't leave much space in the time slots. ;)

Well in Minnesota here the big news is how big of fish some guy cought ice fishing, while world news is not even mentioned. You have to turn to CNN to get any news.

bobakabob
12-07-2007, 08:05 PM
News from the net and the notes the killer left:

Hawkins was a troubled teenager who spent four years in a series of treatment centers, group homes and foster care after threatening to kill his stepmother in 2002. He had recently broken up with a girlfriend recently and lost his job at a McDonald’s.

“I’ve just snapped. I can’t take this meaningless existence anymore I’ve been a constant disappointment and that trend would have only continued,” he wrote.

Hawkins added, “I love you mommy. I love you dad,” and expressed love for several other people. He told them to remember the good times they had.

“Just think tho I’m gonna be (expletive) famous,” he wrote.

--------

He wanted to be famous just like any other mass teen killer in history.
You all talk here about guns and banning them, the real problem is the media and thru there reports make the killer famous. The sad thing is all our freinds in Europe get news thru there media about events all around the world. Here in the US news for the most is only about the US. Sometimes I think it is to keep the people in the dark. Regardless the killer was using a AK 47 that is not even sold here, just black market. So in this case gun laws would have not helped.

Vpii, sound point about the role of the media. It's a distorting lens that makes killing machines and the impressionable kids cowboys and gangsters that use them glamorous. And the gun lobby play on the misery and fear to convince the rest they need defensive weapons.

One helluva marketing strategy :thumbsup:

IMI
12-07-2007, 08:08 PM
Well in Minnesota here the big news is how big of fish some guy cought ice fishing, while world news is not even mentioned. You have to turn to CNN to get any news.

Exactly why I watch CNN almost exclusively. ;)

IMI
12-07-2007, 08:12 PM
Vpii, sound point about the role of the media. It's a distorting lens that makes killing machines and the impressionable kids cowboys and gangsters that use them glamorous. And the gun lobby play on the misery and fear to convince the rest they need defensive weapons.

One helluva marketing strategy :thumbsup:


You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on the news making this guy and others look "glamorous". To other psychos they may look glamorous, but to the rest of us they look like the psychopath losers they were.
I suppose you would have the right to a free press removed as well?

vpii
12-07-2007, 08:30 PM
It really is there 15 minutes of fame that drives the killer. And it is not just a American problem. Kids now are over sense in media, video games, lack of family unity, etc. All of this is nothing to do with guns. You guys all here 3D family. Then tell me what it does when a 3D game company makes a game for the Wii that is only about killing and not just killing, you use the controller to make the stabbing motion as you stab a pen in the eye to kill or glass shard etc. Where is the limits we place on ourselves. Pong was big when I was a kid. I do not want to be told what I can or can not have by any govenment. I do not want to be told what type of games should be made. But maybe the game company should hold back on there own. Guns are the same, anti gun push tell me how are you going to disarm the whole population and gather all the guns to make a even playing field. You can not. Its great they did this long ago in Europe but it would just not work here.

jin choung
12-07-2007, 11:21 PM
WTF?!?!

lol!

guns are not to blame... VIDEO GAMES are to blame!!!

lol!

oh mercy.... seriously... what's the thought processes going on here?

you know what country has some REALLY violent video games and cartoons?

JAPAN. guns are illegal in japan.

you know how many people are killed each year by gun violence in japan?

come on... GUESS.

<i'm just gonna sit here and shake my head sadly for a while>

sigh...........

jin

Cageman
12-07-2007, 11:26 PM
BTW--The WTC/Pentagon terrorists that murdered over 3,000 people used utility knifes & commercial aircraft to kill all of those innocent people.

Here is one problem: People are scared. If I know that I will get help if I try to overman a guy with a knife/sword/baseballbat I wouldn't hesitate to engage the culprit, even if he has yet to attack me. However, most people look the other way when they see something, which makes it very insecure to actually try to do anything about it. If the passengers on those planes had gropuped together, those knifedudes would have been beaten. Granted, some of the passangers would possibly get injured or killed in the process, but one guy with a knife against five people wouldn't stand a chance if those five people communicate just a little. I believe this is what would have happened in those planes if the passengers knew what the terrorists plans were. Much likely, they were told that everything was going to be ok etc, etc, etc.

IMI
12-07-2007, 11:35 PM
you know how many people are killed each year by gun violence in japan?

come on... GUESS.

<i'm just gonna sit here and shake my head sadly for a while>

sigh...........

jin

No idea.
Twelve?
Who needs violence with all that freaky entertainment? ;)

faulknermano
12-07-2007, 11:59 PM
It's often occured to me that if everyone in the US carried a gun in holster wherever they went , then things like the 9/11 hijackings would have been prevented simply because the moment the terrorists produced a weapon, they would have been faced by a fully armed group of passengers.

At present it seems the only people armed are the madmen and the principle of the right to bear arms is only half heartedly followed. If the idea of allowing the ordinary citizen to bear arms is to deter crime then let everyone wear their guns on their hips, ready to be used at a moments notice.

you know, i actually own a gun myself, though i dont carry it around. i like guns, i like tactical shooting, and i believe in ownership and all that.

but i cant make myself believe the rationale you mentioned to be applicable to any other than the kind of shootings we are talking about here. in the situation where a shooter goes into a mall and starts shooting people, it is, without doubt, reasonable to think that if everyone at that mall had a gun the killer would have not been able to kill so many because he will be killed quickly. it is also reasonable to think that a widespread regulation for gun-carrying citizens will make a shooter think twice.

but how about daily life, where we're not talking about people with extreme pathological problems? how about just ordinary citizens, being human, become angry and some to the point of aggression? that happens, by the way. "law-abiding citizens" (which in my opinion is an inadequate categorisation of "people who have not known to have committed any crimes yet, and do not have any known or acknowledged psychological problems") are not immune from bad behavior.

my opinion that people, as a whole, have always been depraved. we're just finding simply more articulate ways to express it. i wouldnt be surprised if people started shooting RPGs or blowing up bombs (like they do here). it may just be a matter of time.

so what i'm actually saying is that there are many problems and to simply say it is guns only, or family only, or games only, etc, is not looking at it clearly. by themselves, gun ownership is NOT the solution, and neither is gun regularisation. and in all probability the most long-lasting and effective solution will probably not all be related to guns. as it is said: clean the inside of the cup, and outside will be clean also.

toby
12-08-2007, 12:02 AM
WTF?!?!

lol!

guns are not to blame... VIDEO GAMES are to blame!!!

lol!

oh mercy.... seriously... what's the thought processes going on here?

you know what country has some REALLY violent video games and cartoons?

JAPAN. guns are illegal in japan.

you know how many people are killed each year by gun violence in japan?

come on... GUESS.

<i'm just gonna sit here and shake my head sadly for a while>

sigh...........

jin
Yea but come on, look at all the people getting killed by fast food and bowling balls. They may as well pass out Uzi's.

I swear, the lengths that some of you will go to defend the right to buy these toys is hysterical. If someone was going to attack you, you wouldn't care if he held a knife... or an assault rifle? Even prefer that they carry a gun instead of pencil??

Cageman
12-08-2007, 12:14 AM
have you anti gun nuts heard of sport shooting? there are many kinds. people buy guns so that they can go to the range and have some fun. much the same way one goes to a bowling alley and throws a 12lb ball at some pins. of course you could also use the said bowling ball to blow someones brains out or defend your family if needed.

Well, do you really have to own your own weapon to do so? I don't own a bowling ball, but I can go to the bowling hall and there are plenty of different balls there (sizes, colours and so on). I'm not sure there are any shootingranges here in Sweden that also provides weapons, but I know there are plenty of those in the US. So, for the fun-factor there are options. Living in Sweden, I have yet to see a reason for me to get a gun "just in case". On top of that, the regulations and restrictions are far too messy for me to go through in order to own a gun/rifle.

ted
12-08-2007, 12:16 AM
'In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002.

And that is counting "children up to 19 or 20 years old...including all the gang "children" killing each other.
Throw that statistic to the "misleading statistic agenda" catagory. :D Did you not know this? Or did you just omit that fact?

If I don't like to swim, what would give me the right to tell you that you CAN'T have a pool because "innocent children" die needlessly from drownings?
Or cars, or toys, or Bicycles etc.

Drowning is the second-leading cause of injury-related death among children under the age of 15.
In 2000, there were 3,482 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.

It's my hobby, my protection and my right. Don't buy one if you don't want one and. Period. :thumbsup:

faulknermano
12-08-2007, 12:16 AM
But you don't get it. The means by which people kill others is irrelevant. Bubble wrap can kill people.

it is without a doubt easier to kill a person with a gun than bubble wrap. i think this is the original idea.

i believe it is also easier (or harder) to disassociate based on the type of weapon you choose. but i am no expert on that. however, i believe it false to say the means of killing is irrelevant. it is very relevant. the fact that bubble wrap is not a weapon of choice, nor is a baseball bat, (among other things) underlines the ease in which a gun kills, and if an AK-47 is mentioned, all the more so. and that is the "effect" some killers are looking for.

faulknermano
12-08-2007, 12:18 AM
You are right. If every adult was mandated to carry a gun, he probably would have only gotten one shot off.

and hit a passer-by most likely. if he was very quick with the trigger he would have contributed to the death toll, no doubt.

when talking about guns, gun ownership isnt enough. even police officers have terrible hit ratios. what more an untrained gunslinger?

Cageman
12-08-2007, 12:19 AM
2; get on the plane that does no checks and take your luck with the terrorists, i think i seriously would take option number 2.

Tell that to the 3000+ relatives to those that died in 9/11... :rolleyes:

toby
12-08-2007, 12:57 AM
And that is counting "children up to 19 or 20 years old...including all the gang "children" killing each other.
Throw that statistic to the "misleading statistic agenda" catagory. :D Did you not know this? Or did you just omit that fact?
Oh good, the real statistic is only 20 times as many kids get killed in the US, I feel much better. What's your source anyway?


If I don't like to swim, what would give me the right to tell you that you CAN'T have a pool because "innocent children" die needlessly from drownings?
Or cars, or toys, or Bicycles etc.

Oh, oh, I know this one - because a pool can't be stolen and used to kill dozens of people? It provides hours of healthy excersize for kids of all ages?

jin choung
12-08-2007, 01:10 AM
Yea but come on, look at all the people getting killed by fast food and bowling balls. They may as well pass out Uzi's.

I swear, the lengths that some of you will go to defend the right to buy these toys is hysterical. If someone was going to attack you, you wouldn't care if he held a knife... or an assault rifle? Even prefer that they carry a gun instead of pencil??

huh? i didn't understand that.... you know that i was saying that the premise that games kill (moreso than guns) is ridiculous right?

jin

jin choung
12-08-2007, 01:14 AM
Tell that to the 3000+ relatives to those that died in 9/11... :rolleyes:

???

so you're saying that we should not have checks in airplanes then and since 3000 people died we should just stop doing that?

easy to be cute but what's your point here?

jin

Cageman
12-08-2007, 01:16 AM
huh? i didn't understand that.... you know that i was saying that the premise that games kill (moreso than guns) is ridiculous right?

jin

No!!! Jin... ask Jack Thompson... he knows that games kill people and that's why he want violent games to be banned.

Cageman
12-08-2007, 01:18 AM
???

so you're saying that we should not have checks in airplanes then and since 3000 people died we should just stop doing that?

easy to be cute but what's your point here?

jin

Uhm?

Red Oddity is fed up with the security and he wanted to have an option to not have security, but taking the chances with terrorists. I told him to tell that to all those that lost someone they love in 9/11.

I'm all for securitychecks at airports.

jin choung
12-08-2007, 01:18 AM
and hit a passer-by most likely. if he was very quick with the trigger he would have contributed to the death toll, no doubt.

when talking about guns, gun ownership isnt enough. even police officers have terrible hit ratios. what more an untrained gunslinger?

actually,

you know what. i'm tired of all this talk.

we should LET THEM TRY IT.

make it a national MANDATE: EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD (kids are allowed to shoot rifles (!!!)) must carry a rifle... alright... a small rifle... a carbine.

i am totally, dead serious. forget the debate. let's just try it!

arm every neighborhood from the suburbs of virginia and montana to the urban warzones of south central los angeles and the mean streats in detroit.

make it like trousers or outerwear... you are not allowed out of the home without it. gucci can make designer uzis for the fashion conscious. every starbucks, playground, library or poker game.

i would LOOOOOOVE to let them try it.

and then as the u.s. turns into wwwIII jr. say, "i told you so"....

(while wildly cackling and gunning down mofos with my car mounted chaingun of course)

jin

jin choung
12-08-2007, 01:22 AM
Uhm?

Red Oddity is fed up with the security and he wanted to have an option to not have security, but taking the chances with terrorists. I told him to tell that to all those that lost someone they love in 9/11.

I'm all for securitychecks at airports.


oh my bad. i mis-read the statement you quoted from him.

apologies.

jin

jin choung
12-08-2007, 01:25 AM
No!!! Jin... ask Jack Thompson... he knows that games kill people and that's why he want violent games to be banned.

lol. maaaaaan, i am surprised that guy STILL has been dis-barred yet.

i've heard of ambulance chasers but the guy is a joke.

jin

toby
12-08-2007, 01:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toby
Yea but come on, look at all the people getting killed by fast food and bowling balls. They may as well pass out Uzi's.

I swear, the lengths that some of you will go to defend the right to buy these toys is hysterical. If someone was going to attack you, you wouldn't care if he held a knife... or an assault rifle? Even prefer that they carry a gun instead of pencil??

huh? i didn't understand that.... you know that i was saying that the premise that games kill (moreso than guns) is ridiculous right?

jin
Sorry if that was vague
The first part is sarcasm that a bowling pin is just as dangerous as a gun
The second part wasn't directed at you either

jin choung
12-08-2007, 01:29 AM
re: fast lane, no security plane.

if it were up to me, i would give red his wish.

a plane that boards with no security and yous takes your chances. but the plane is armed with an extremely efficient self destruct mechanism linked to air traffic control.

if the flight gets... ummm... "compromised"... only the hurryharrys get incinerated.

jin

meshpig
12-08-2007, 01:48 AM
lol. maaaaaan, i am surprised that guy STILL has been dis-barred yet.

i've heard of ambulance chasers but the guy is a joke.

jin


Totally agree, WTF?

m

*Pete*
12-08-2007, 02:35 AM
some comments are silly...like "bubble wrap can also kill", "more people dies in traffic" etc etc.

look at it in this way.

bubble wrap = can kill, very few deaths each year, usefull for safe transport of things.

Traffic, cars, buses, trucks = can kill, lots of deaths each year, incredibly usefull as means of transportation, and...saves lifes, be it as an ambulance, or you driving your sick/hurt kid to hospital.

guns = can kill, lots of deaths each year, fun to shoot with, adds increased security feeling.

as i see it, guns and bubble wrap can be replaced with other, less lethal things..such as pepperspray (gun) and...popcorn (bubble wrap).
traffic is very needed..but perhaps one could try to increase public transport to decrease accidents in traffic...or simply build better roads and safer cars.

More people die in hospitals each year, than people get killed by traffic and guns together..yet hospitals are needed as they save more lifes than they take.
guns save no lifes..well, perhaps 100.000 each year in USA (of 300.000.000 people), (and i think many are police officers or criminal people who need guns to be able to actively protect themselfs from other criminals.)
Guns increase the chance for suicide by almost 500%, also people who have guns at home are statistically more likely to get killed by them, mostly by own guns.
hrgiger posted a link earlier in the thread about these facts, yet nobody bothers to read through it....people here, anti and pro gun, are so incredibly biased in there opinions that nothing can change them.

Lightwolf
12-08-2007, 06:38 AM
have you anti gun nuts heard of sport shooting?
Erm, you don't use an AK-47 for sports... actually there are special guns designed for that which would probably be next to useless in a self defense situation. They're also small calibre firearms. After all, in sports you're judged by how well you hit the target, not by the size of the hole you produced ;)
Plus this is a different issue alltogether, as is hunting. (Most countried with gun bans allow for firearms in either case... if you meet the requirements for a permit).

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
12-08-2007, 06:43 AM
but i cant make myself believe the rationale you mentioned to be applicable to any other than the kind of shootings we are talking about here. in the situation where a shooter goes into a mall and starts shooting people, it is, without doubt, reasonable to think that if everyone at that mall had a gun the killer would have not been able to kill so many because he will be killed quickly. it is also reasonable to think that a widespread regulation for gun-carrying citizens will make a shooter think twice.

There's a few problems with this. First of all, even if guns were legal to carry, doesn't mean that everyone at the mall would be carrying a gun. Secondly, even if guns were legal to carry in public, doesn't mean that businesses couldn't restrict people from carrying their guns into their establishments. We have a conceal and carry law here in Ohio but the last few places I've worked at do not allow you to bring a firearm in. Thirdly, do you really think that when someone has reached the end of their rope enough to walk into a crowded public place and start murdering people is really going to be dissuaded by the fact that others might have guns too? Most of these people end up turning their guns on themselves (which to me is the best use of a firearm I could think of, if only all criminals could act in such a fashion), I'm not really sure they're super concerned about their own safety. And as I mentioned above, even if the killer did consider this, he may choose a target that does not allow firearms to be brought inside.

Lightwolf
12-08-2007, 06:48 AM
you know how many people are killed each year by gun violence in japan?

come on... GUESS.

Just look it up... per capita around 1% of the gun related homicides in the US.

WE again end up with the problem of being faced with a society that has completely different rules... and the difference is larger than the US vs Europe for example (or even US vs. Canada for that matter).

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
12-08-2007, 06:56 AM
in the situation where a shooter goes into a mall and starts shooting people, it is, without doubt, reasonable to think that if everyone at that mall had a gun the killer would have not been able to kill so many because he will be killed quickly. it is also reasonable to think that a widespread regulation for gun-carrying citizens will make a shooter think twice.
I actually doubt that. Think arms race. If you want to take as many people down as possible, and you're clear enough to somehow prepare for it (i.e. get an AK-47) - and you know the risk is higher you'd prepare differently. Things would just get bloodier in the long run.
After all, the guy apparently wasn't irrational but disturbed.

Cheers,
Mike

hrgiger
12-08-2007, 07:26 AM
It's often occured to me that if everyone in the US carried a gun in holster wherever they went , then things like the 9/11 hijackings would have been prevented simply because the moment the terrorists produced a weapon, they would have been faced by a fully armed group of passengers.



I cant' believe I missed this magical gem.

Ok, reality check. Even if the most radical conservative NRA spook gets in the whitehouse (you know, like Bush Sr.), guns will never be allowed on airplanes. Those wacky planes usually don't respond well to holes in them during flight. Or Jet fuel. Or Oxygen. Ok pumpkin?

Another thing. It was believed that the terrorists who executed 9/11 spent years preparing for that day. IF people were able to carry on board firearms, I'm sure they would have had a plan for that too. I think it was Pete who mentioned earlier in the thread that there's no reason why a plane full of passengers couldn't overtake 5 terrorists with boxcutters. Well there actually is. Terrorists had the advantage of surprise. They also went on that planne prepared to die. Most of those passengers I can guarantee wanted to see their homes and their families again. They didn't know what was in store for them and on Flight 93 where apparently the passengers did fight back, by the time they found out what was going on, it was too late to save the plane(although ironically becoming the only true martyrs on the plane). Those people on those plane weren't off-duty cops, weren't trained mercenaries, and people like that aren't going to take on a group of knife wielding sociopaths because they were probalby told that if they behaved, they wouldn't be killed. Die-Hard is a great movie series, but it's not reality.

vpii
12-08-2007, 07:43 AM
huh? i didn't understand that.... you know that i was saying that the premise that games kill (moreso than guns) is ridiculous right?

jin

Just for the record I was not implying video games are the reason. I am suggesting kids are becoming de sensitized to killing thru very graphic games. number 1 reason is lack of family core. How many times I wonder this killer sat around the table and even had a simple dinner with his family. This kid here if you read news was a drug dealer and has shoot at a car before while driving in a drug deal gone bad. Was not someone that was normal and just went on a killing rage, he was already bad.