OMG a gun was used by private individuals to SAVE LIVES!!!!
I guess none of the gun contol/registration freaks care to address this story?
Originally posted by: AAjax
Originally posted by: highwire
I was a well trained rifleman at the age of thirteen. If there was even the threat of a few armed and disciplined youngsters, or even oldster for that matter, to intervene, this event would NOT have happened. People have been drugged by the media, et al, to be passive, particularly when the actor is a person of color. The Wichita massacre is an example.
A passive and disarmed population in the middle of a tragic multicultural experiment is a bad combination.
In 2002 when a gunman started killing people on a campus in VA, he was stopped by two armed students
Course, you didn't hear about that on the news, did you? Kinda makes you wonder what the corporate media's agenda is...
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
Originally posted by: Genx87
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html
Nugent hits the nail on the head with this one.
Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
My right to own a gun is guaranteed. I guess that makes you the one doing the whining. :laugh:
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
My right to own a gun is guaranteed. I guess that makes you the one doing the whining. :laugh:
You don't have an history of mental disturbs, do you?
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
My right to own a gun is guaranteed. I guess that makes you the one doing the whining. :laugh:
You don't have an history of mental disturbs, do you?
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
"There's only one real ?freedom' in America?the freedom to kill one another?"
"In Virginia at the age of 13, you can buy a revolver at a supermarket."
I was reading news headlines regarding international reaction to the VT massacre and this came up (link) from some newspapers in Europe. Now European media is not exactly well regarded, but some of the comments are so bizarre and strange that it makes you wonder what they're thinking.
The quote about buying guns at 13 was actually a direct quote of a student living in Virginia, not the journalist's.
But aside from anything about gun control, for which I really care little considering I live in NYC, there are a few things I think people should think about:
* Firearm-associated family and intimate assaults are 12 times more likely to be fatal than those not associated with firearms. Saltzman LE. Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults.
Journal of the American Medical Association 1992; 267:3043 .
* The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
* The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.
* The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
MMWR. 1997;46:101-105.
* In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is three times as likely to occur than in homes without a gun. The risk of a suicide is increased nearly five-fold in homes with guns.
Kellermann AL et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329: 1084-1091, and Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New England Journal of Medicine 1992; 327:467-472 .
* From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6]
* Guns are the weapon of choice for troubled individuals who commit suicide. In 1999, firearms were used in 16,599 suicide deaths in America. Among young people under 20, one committed suicide with a gun every eight hours.[7]
* A gun in the home also increases the likelihood of an unintentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[8]
The last one is particularly shocking:
The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.
Then to each his own, anybody can keep his beliefs. But I think some serious discussion of these data could be healthy.
Just so you know about 1/2 -3/4 of those sources have been fully debunked, even by people on the side of gun control. Hell, Kellerman himself admitted his study and subsequent report were wholly unreliable and should be totally discounted, and has since gone on to publish PRO-GUN reports (well, at least moderately pro-gun).
I am no expert on the subject, however, the FBI statistic is quite likely to be accurate, and a few of the other (including the last one, which to me is the most stunning) are simple mathematical calculations.
Children 0-14 dead from firearm injuries is a number hard to be put in perspective. What could you argue about that? That they deserved it? Most of them die because they fire a weapon they found in their houses and started playing with. If the weapon had not been there they would not die.
Same applies to female murdered by their partner. It's a very common scheme, the guy comes back home drunk and start an argument. Because he has a gun he shoots the partner. If he hadn't the gun he would probably just slap or punch her like sons-of-a-bitch like him do in other parts of the world.
The point is, even if you do not believe some of those numbers, the difference between the US and other developed countries is so huge that cutting those numbers 50% usually doesn't change the situation.
Here's another research:
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/...rstanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf
Country Murders per 1M Murders per 1M with firearm
USA 75.9 44.6
England 6.7 0.8
Netherlands 11.8 2.7
France 12.5 5.5
CSSR 13.5 2.6
Norway 12.1 3.0
Germany 12.1 2.0
The homicide table is even more dramatic... The correlation between gun-ownership and suicides using firearms is almost 1.
Yet I'm sure you'll find this data irrelevant. People who love their guns just don't want to consider the idea of not having them.
But again, I don't care about this that much. I live between Manhattan and Europe, and thanks god people in these places usually don't go around with a frigging gun in their pocket. So it's all good to me. As I said in my previous post, I just think some public debate on this data would healthy, even if you don't do anything about this. Maybe, for example, people could start keeping their weapons and ammunition in strictly separate places, something that would greatly affect the number of accidents involving children and kids.
I don't claim there isn't a violence problem in America, I merely keep the debates honest.
For instance, IF guns are THE SINGLE factor which dictates gun related crime/death then Switzerland should rate much worse in those areas since it has an almost equal number of homes with guns in them. Maybe if you narrow that down to 'handguns' you could get a better feel, but you can still find nations that have handguns but much lower crime and accidents. Even keeping it a domestic debate IF it were handguns that were the key factor you should see an EXTREMELY high rate of incident with persons who have a concealed permit since they have handguns and carry them frequently. Yet concealed weapon holders do not have accidents or incidents in any numbers...in fact as already pointed out they have fewer problems than law enforcement or regular citizens. That means that again, merely having a gun is in NO WAY an indicator of the likelihood of crime or accident. So it isn't the guns themselves, that means it's something else, or a combination.
Yes, kids have been killed by guns, but no where near the number killed by cars. How many other things can we find that injure and/or kill as many or more children than guns? Having identified those things why do we not debate about them? Why only guns? Also you should keep in mind that many pieces of research that refer to things such as 'kids being killed by guns' includes suicide, deaths while committing a crime, and so on. That means we have to examine the research numbers themselves very closely to accurately say rather it was an accidental death (finding a gun and playing with it), or a deserved death (trying to rob a store and getting shot in the process). You can try to argue that without the guns themselves the events wouldn't have happened but statistics from all other nations disprove that (Australia and the UK with very strict controls on guns still experience crime, and in fact their rates of crime are rising while ours in America are falling).
If drugs weren't around people wouldn't overdose, or commit crimes while under the influence. For that matter if alcohol weren't around people wouldn't drive under the influence. We tried prohibition and repealed it. We've made war against drugs for decades and they're absolutely everywhere. This means that the entire argument of 'if they weren't legal then they wouldn't be there and therefore bad things wouldn't happen because of them' is 100% TOTAL CRAP! Accept it.
Your suicide correlation claim is ridiculous in the extreme. If there was truly a two-way correlation of 1 then every house with a gun would have a suicide. Since there are 100 million homes in America with a gun, and not nearly that many suicides, we know that isn't so. Instead, it's a one-way correlation that also would apply to nearly every other form of suicide once controlled for in the statistical data. In other words, once you accept suicide as a given event then you merely look in the home to find the most expedient method. If there's a gun that's simple, so they use it. If there's meds that's simple, so they use them. And so on. The guns are irrelevant in that equation because the suicide attempt is a given with or without them.
There's nothing wrong with educating people about dangers. There's nothing wrong with implementing basic processes to obtain weapons (like we already have, or maybe even including a mental health component which many states already do). There's nothing wrong with encouraging safe treatment and storage. What's wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of bad information, poor reasoning, or emotional decisions. Just so you know my father kept our rifles locked in the gun cabinet and the key hidden, kept the bolts to the rifles hidden in a drawer in his room, and kept the ammunition in a locked container over our freezer in the basement. When I was very young I somehow managed to learn all this and while they were out one day I got all the parts and was in the process of putting them all together when he came home. Needless to say I suffered for my stupidity, and then entered a long time training with weapon responsibility and have not been unsafe since. What I'm driving at here is that separate storage doesn't solve anything - education and training does.
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
My right to own a gun is guaranteed. I guess that makes you the one doing the whining. :laugh:
You don't have an history of mental disturbs, do you?
Go back to Europe and don't worry about me. I can take care of myself just fine.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
My right to own a gun is guaranteed. I guess that makes you the one doing the whining. :laugh:
You don't have an history of mental disturbs, do you?
What part of 2nd amendment dont you understand?
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
"There's only one real ?freedom' in America?the freedom to kill one another?"
"In Virginia at the age of 13, you can buy a revolver at a supermarket."
I was reading news headlines regarding international reaction to the VT massacre and this came up (link) from some newspapers in Europe. Now European media is not exactly well regarded, but some of the comments are so bizarre and strange that it makes you wonder what they're thinking.
The quote about buying guns at 13 was actually a direct quote of a student living in Virginia, not the journalist's.
But aside from anything about gun control, for which I really care little considering I live in NYC, there are a few things I think people should think about:
* Firearm-associated family and intimate assaults are 12 times more likely to be fatal than those not associated with firearms. Saltzman LE. Weapon involvement and injury outcomes in family and intimate assaults.
Journal of the American Medical Association 1992; 267:3043 .
* The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
* The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.
* The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
MMWR. 1997;46:101-105.
* In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is three times as likely to occur than in homes without a gun. The risk of a suicide is increased nearly five-fold in homes with guns.
Kellermann AL et al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329: 1084-1091, and Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership. New England Journal of Medicine 1992; 327:467-472 .
* From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6]
* Guns are the weapon of choice for troubled individuals who commit suicide. In 1999, firearms were used in 16,599 suicide deaths in America. Among young people under 20, one committed suicide with a gun every eight hours.[7]
* A gun in the home also increases the likelihood of an unintentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[8]
The last one is particularly shocking:
The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.
Then to each his own, anybody can keep his beliefs. But I think some serious discussion of these data could be healthy.
Just so you know about 1/2 -3/4 of those sources have been fully debunked, even by people on the side of gun control. Hell, Kellerman himself admitted his study and subsequent report were wholly unreliable and should be totally discounted, and has since gone on to publish PRO-GUN reports (well, at least moderately pro-gun).
I am no expert on the subject, however, the FBI statistic is quite likely to be accurate, and a few of the other (including the last one, which to me is the most stunning) are simple mathematical calculations.
Children 0-14 dead from firearm injuries is a number hard to be put in perspective. What could you argue about that? That they deserved it? Most of them die because they fire a weapon they found in their houses and started playing with. If the weapon had not been there they would not die.
Same applies to female murdered by their partner. It's a very common scheme, the guy comes back home drunk and start an argument. Because he has a gun he shoots the partner. If he hadn't the gun he would probably just slap or punch her like sons-of-a-bitch like him do in other parts of the world.
The point is, even if you do not believe some of those numbers, the difference between the US and other developed countries is so huge that cutting those numbers 50% usually doesn't change the situation.
Here's another research:
http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/...rstanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf
Country Murders per 1M Murders per 1M with firearm
USA 75.9 44.6
England 6.7 0.8
Netherlands 11.8 2.7
France 12.5 5.5
CSSR 13.5 2.6
Norway 12.1 3.0
Germany 12.1 2.0
The homicide table is even more dramatic... The correlation between gun-ownership and suicides using firearms is almost 1.
Yet I'm sure you'll find this data irrelevant. People who love their guns just don't want to consider the idea of not having them.
But again, I don't care about this that much. I live between Manhattan and Europe, and thanks god people in these places usually don't go around with a frigging gun in their pocket. So it's all good to me. As I said in my previous post, I just think some public debate on this data would healthy, even if you don't do anything about this. Maybe, for example, people could start keeping their weapons and ammunition in strictly separate places, something that would greatly affect the number of accidents involving children and kids.
I don't claim there isn't a violence problem in America, I merely keep the debates honest.
For instance, IF guns are THE SINGLE factor which dictates gun related crime/death then Switzerland should rate much worse in those areas since it has an almost equal number of homes with guns in them. Maybe if you narrow that down to 'handguns' you could get a better feel, but you can still find nations that have handguns but much lower crime and accidents. Even keeping it a domestic debate IF it were handguns that were the key factor you should see an EXTREMELY high rate of incident with persons who have a concealed permit since they have handguns and carry them frequently. Yet concealed weapon holders do not have accidents or incidents in any numbers...in fact as already pointed out they have fewer problems than law enforcement or regular citizens. That means that again, merely having a gun is in NO WAY an indicator of the likelihood of crime or accident. So it isn't the guns themselves, that means it's something else, or a combination.
Yes, kids have been killed by guns, but no where near the number killed by cars. How many other things can we find that injure and/or kill as many or more children than guns? Having identified those things why do we not debate about them? Why only guns? Also you should keep in mind that many pieces of research that refer to things such as 'kids being killed by guns' includes suicide, deaths while committing a crime, and so on. That means we have to examine the research numbers themselves very closely to accurately say rather it was an accidental death (finding a gun and playing with it), or a deserved death (trying to rob a store and getting shot in the process). You can try to argue that without the guns themselves the events wouldn't have happened but statistics from all other nations disprove that (Australia and the UK with very strict controls on guns still experience crime, and in fact their rates of crime are rising while ours in America are falling).
If drugs weren't around people wouldn't overdose, or commit crimes while under the influence. For that matter if alcohol weren't around people wouldn't drive under the influence. We tried prohibition and repealed it. We've made war against drugs for decades and they're absolutely everywhere. This means that the entire argument of 'if they weren't legal then they wouldn't be there and therefore bad things wouldn't happen because of them' is 100% TOTAL CRAP! Accept it.
Your suicide correlation claim is ridiculous in the extreme. If there was truly a two-way correlation of 1 then every house with a gun would have a suicide. Since there are 100 million homes in America with a gun, and not nearly that many suicides, we know that isn't so. Instead, it's a one-way correlation that also would apply to nearly every other form of suicide once controlled for in the statistical data. In other words, once you accept suicide as a given event then you merely look in the home to find the most expedient method. If there's a gun that's simple, so they use it. If there's meds that's simple, so they use them. And so on. The guns are irrelevant in that equation because the suicide attempt is a given with or without them.
There's nothing wrong with educating people about dangers. There's nothing wrong with implementing basic processes to obtain weapons (like we already have, or maybe even including a mental health component which many states already do). There's nothing wrong with encouraging safe treatment and storage. What's wrong is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of bad information, poor reasoning, or emotional decisions. Just so you know my father kept our rifles locked in the gun cabinet and the key hidden, kept the bolts to the rifles hidden in a drawer in his room, and kept the ammunition in a locked container over our freezer in the basement. When I was very young I somehow managed to learn all this and while they were out one day I got all the parts and was in the process of putting them all together when he came home. Needless to say I suffered for my stupidity, and then entered a long time training with weapon responsibility and have not been unsafe since. What I'm driving at here is that separate storage doesn't solve anything - education and training does.
Maybe the way I think is a little different, but again I disagree. The US has a proble with crime unreleted to guns, you say. That's ok. It might be the case. You are basically saying that Americans tend to be more criminal-behaving that other people. Now, I don't get why you prefer these criminals to have easy access to guns. People like this Virginia-Tech student should never be able to get their hands on a gun. And he was not a criminal. He became a criminal because 1) he was mentally disturbed b) could get a gun. Mentally disturbed people should not be able to just enter a shop and buy weapons. At least, this is my opinion.
I never said that guns create bank-robbers. I said that if you have a gun in your house and keep it in a lousy way, it's easier to have accidents happening. Same with suicides. Same with murders of family members.
How do you explain the difference between murders per 1M people of the US compared to other developed countries? Again, I am no expert but I would consider firewarms being so accessible probably not helping this.
A couple of years ago one guy, 16, shot to death another guy 19 at the corner from where I live. The guy was talking with a group of friends on one side of the street, and a rival gang walked on the other side. One of them apparently said something not really polite about the shooter's girlfriend, and so he reacted by killing ANOTHER guy. He missed the one he intended to kill. Now, did having a gun cause the shooter's rage? No. Did it cause the killing? Yes. In other countries the same identical story (which happens hundred of nights, every night) would end with a fist fight, some punching, and maybe a couple of hours in detention before going home where their father would probably kick their ass. Here it ended with one dead guy, and not even the one the murderer targeted. This guy was not a criminal. He was just a kid who listened to too much hip-hop and thought he had to demonstrate the world nobody could insult his girlfriend and live to tell it. I can tell you in my experience living in many many countries, assholes and idiots are everywhere. The US do not have a monopoly of them. Yet many times a fight here ends with bullets flying, in other countries ends with a broken nose.
But as you say, that research includes a lot of different reasons for murders. Murders while committing a crime? In the 0-14 age category? I guess I underestimate all those 8 years old guys robbing liquor stores. And anyway, let's say that 50% of those 0-14 guys were committing a crime (doh!) isn't saving the other 50% worth trying? Isn't saving just one of them worth trying?
The suicide correlation is not mine, it's in the research paper. And you must have misunderstood the meaning of it. It doesn't show that every gun holder will commit suicide, just that there is a direct link between suicides and gun ownership in different countries, with a statistical correlation of almost one. Obviously suicide attempts wouldn't be stopped by lack of firewearms, but how much easier it is to succeed in suicide with a gun compared to other methods? This is particularly relevant for teenage suicides.
I am glad your father did the right thing, and that you keep your guns locked. Is it true for every house? Is it true for most houses? When you talk about guns, being an individual who owns them and wants to keep the right to do so, you always talk from the perspective of the guy with the gun in his hand. What about being on the other side of the bullet? Do you honestly think that everybody having a gun today deserve this right?
Edit: Thanks for being able to keep the discussion polite.
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Aisengard
Guns need to be harder to obatin, PERIOD.
This kid went out and bought a gun legally, when he had a clear and documented history of mental illness. Oh yeah, there's a good decision right there. The right to own a gun does not trump the right for the rest of society to be safe. You want to own a gun, you prove you have the responsibility and mental stability to use it responsibly. Unfortunately gun nuts like the ones we have right here in this thread will whine and scream and hem and haw that people's 'right' to own machines that are specifically designed to kill PEOPLE (not animals, people) are being stamped on. It's unfortunate that people in power actually share these sentiments.
My right to own a gun is guaranteed. I guess that makes you the one doing the whining. :laugh:
You don't have an history of mental disturbs, do you?
Go back to Europe and don't worry about me. I can take care of myself just fine.
I'm sorry if you thought it was an offense. I just meant that you, differently from the gentleman who killed his schoolmates, do not have an history of mental disturbs.
That's exactly why I don't worry about you having guns, and worry about him having guns.
And I do go back to Europe every year, for 4 months. Why? Do you need some serious wine?
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: homercles337
Originally posted by: highwire
A lot of common sense there, lozina.
And remember, until the police get Star Treck transporters, their main function in matters such as the VT slaughter will be drawing chalk lines around bodies, not protection.
No its not "common sense." Being qualified to buy a handgun should be MUCH more involved. Such as, a psych evaluation and an interview by authorities concerning why one NEEDS a handgun.
Common sense aint so common.
Should you have all your writings and speech "approved" by the .gov before saying or publishing it?
Umm, yea because speech or writing gives me the power to kill a large number of innocent people in a short time. :roll: I love the illogical leaps you gun nuts like to take.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Once again, the fact that some people will abuse their rights and freedoms to harm others, and the fact that we are all innocent until proven guilty....
That is the price we pay for living in a free society without having thought police running around and throwing people in jail for anything they want. That is why guns in the hands of the citizens is the ultimate symbol of free society; it represents that we the people and our government trust one another with the ultimate power to take life. If people cannot be trusted with that power, they cannot be trusted with any other power, period. Then the whole basis of our system of government, that is power in the hands of the people, our constitution, everything goes out the window if the people are not to be trusted. People who cannot be trusted must be controlled, and they are no longer free. To some of the communists in power in our own government, that is exactly what they want, because they want a monopoly on those powers.
300,000,000 population of USA / 12,000 gun deaths per year = 0.004%. Most of those are not necessarily innocent victims either, like drug dealers ripping each other off, etc. Shooting in VT. Refresh the page, shooting at that NASA building. Refresh the page, what's next? If thats all you do all day it looks like an epidemic. Quit watching that 0.004% on TV and go take a walk outside and get back with me how many shootings you witness.
I'd go on and on like I normally do, but I have a headache from staring at spaghetti assembly code all night...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: exdeath
Once again, the fact that some people will abuse their rights and freedoms to harm others, and the fact that we are all innocent until proven guilty....
That is the price we pay for living in a free society without having thought police running around and throwing people in jail for anything they want. That is why guns in the hands of the citizens is the ultimate symbol of free society; it represents that we the people and our government trust one another with the ultimate power to take life. If people cannot be trusted with that power, they cannot be trusted with any other power, period. Then the whole basis of our system of government, that is power in the hands of the people, our constitution, everything goes out the window if the people are not to be trusted. People who cannot be trusted must be controlled, and they are no longer free. To some of the communists in power in our own government, that is exactly what they want, because they want a monopoly on those powers.
300,000,000 population of USA / 12,000 gun deaths per year = 0.004%. Most of those are not necessarily innocent victims either, like drug dealers ripping each other off, etc. Shooting in VT. Refresh the page, shooting at that NASA building. Refresh the page, what's next? If thats all you do all day it looks like an epidemic. Quit watching that 0.004% on TV and go take a walk outside and get back with me how many shootings you witness.
I'd go on and on like I normally do, but I have a headache from staring at spaghetti assembly code all night...
Isn't it AMAZING how lightly pro-gun folks take gun deaths when a terrorist attack that has killed far less people has resulted in such fanatical behavior by many of the same people? 12,000 gun deaths per year, but don't you dare touch the 2nd Amendment! 3,000 dead on 9/11, time to gut the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th!
I'm against the government stepping on the 2nd Amendment just as much as the rest of them, but I find it the height of hypocrisy that the same people who so zealously defend the 2nd amendment care so little about the rest of them. Are you not one of those people? Good, you can join me and the other 5 of us at our monthly meeting.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: exdeath
Once again, the fact that some people will abuse their rights and freedoms to harm others, and the fact that we are all innocent until proven guilty....
That is the price we pay for living in a free society without having thought police running around and throwing people in jail for anything they want. That is why guns in the hands of the citizens is the ultimate symbol of free society; it represents that we the people and our government trust one another with the ultimate power to take life. If people cannot be trusted with that power, they cannot be trusted with any other power, period. Then the whole basis of our system of government, that is power in the hands of the people, our constitution, everything goes out the window if the people are not to be trusted. People who cannot be trusted must be controlled, and they are no longer free. To some of the communists in power in our own government, that is exactly what they want, because they want a monopoly on those powers.
300,000,000 population of USA / 12,000 gun deaths per year = 0.004%. Most of those are not necessarily innocent victims either, like drug dealers ripping each other off, etc. Shooting in VT. Refresh the page, shooting at that NASA building. Refresh the page, what's next? If thats all you do all day it looks like an epidemic. Quit watching that 0.004% on TV and go take a walk outside and get back with me how many shootings you witness.
I'd go on and on like I normally do, but I have a headache from staring at spaghetti assembly code all night...
Isn't it AMAZING how lightly pro-gun folks take gun deaths when a terrorist attack that has killed far less people has resulted in such fanatical behavior by many of the same people? 12,000 gun deaths per year, but don't you dare touch the 2nd Amendment! 3,000 dead on 9/11, time to gut the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th!
I'm against the government stepping on the 2nd Amendment just as much as the rest of them, but I find it the height of hypocrisy that the same people who so zealously defend the 2nd amendment care so little about the rest of them. Are you not one of those people? Good, you can join me and the other 5 of us at our monthly meeting.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: exdeath
Once again, the fact that some people will abuse their rights and freedoms to harm others, and the fact that we are all innocent until proven guilty....
That is the price we pay for living in a free society without having thought police running around and throwing people in jail for anything they want. That is why guns in the hands of the citizens is the ultimate symbol of free society; it represents that we the people and our government trust one another with the ultimate power to take life. If people cannot be trusted with that power, they cannot be trusted with any other power, period. Then the whole basis of our system of government, that is power in the hands of the people, our constitution, everything goes out the window if the people are not to be trusted. People who cannot be trusted must be controlled, and they are no longer free. To some of the communists in power in our own government, that is exactly what they want, because they want a monopoly on those powers.
300,000,000 population of USA / 12,000 gun deaths per year = 0.004%. Most of those are not necessarily innocent victims either, like drug dealers ripping each other off, etc. Shooting in VT. Refresh the page, shooting at that NASA building. Refresh the page, what's next? If thats all you do all day it looks like an epidemic. Quit watching that 0.004% on TV and go take a walk outside and get back with me how many shootings you witness.
I'd go on and on like I normally do, but I have a headache from staring at spaghetti assembly code all night...
Isn't it AMAZING how lightly pro-gun folks take gun deaths when a terrorist attack that has killed far less people has resulted in such fanatical behavior by many of the same people? 12,000 gun deaths per year, but don't you dare touch the 2nd Amendment! 3,000 dead on 9/11, time to gut the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th!
I'm against the government stepping on the 2nd Amendment just as much as the rest of them, but I find it the height of hypocrisy that the same people who so zealously defend the 2nd amendment care so little about the rest of them. Are you not one of those people? Good, you can join me and the other 5 of us at our monthly meeting.
I completely agree Rains. Maybe because, as with many other things (not gonna derail the thread), people only care about the death of thers based on what they feel is a worthy cause. An example is exactly what you have said: apperantly most people think the death by firearms is soooo tragic when it involves college students, but the death by firearms of the maaaany others in the US arent worthy of attention. Maybe if people would think without injecting emotion into it things could change.
Hypocrytical indeed.
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: exdeath
Once again, the fact that some people will abuse their rights and freedoms to harm others, and the fact that we are all innocent until proven guilty....
That is the price we pay for living in a free society without having thought police running around and throwing people in jail for anything they want. That is why guns in the hands of the citizens is the ultimate symbol of free society; it represents that we the people and our government trust one another with the ultimate power to take life. If people cannot be trusted with that power, they cannot be trusted with any other power, period. Then the whole basis of our system of government, that is power in the hands of the people, our constitution, everything goes out the window if the people are not to be trusted. People who cannot be trusted must be controlled, and they are no longer free. To some of the communists in power in our own government, that is exactly what they want, because they want a monopoly on those powers.
300,000,000 population of USA / 12,000 gun deaths per year = 0.004%. Most of those are not necessarily innocent victims either, like drug dealers ripping each other off, etc. Shooting in VT. Refresh the page, shooting at that NASA building. Refresh the page, what's next? If thats all you do all day it looks like an epidemic. Quit watching that 0.004% on TV and go take a walk outside and get back with me how many shootings you witness.
I'd go on and on like I normally do, but I have a headache from staring at spaghetti assembly code all night...
Isn't it AMAZING how lightly pro-gun folks take gun deaths when a terrorist attack that has killed far less people has resulted in such fanatical behavior by many of the same people? 12,000 gun deaths per year, but don't you dare touch the 2nd Amendment! 3,000 dead on 9/11, time to gut the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th!
I'm against the government stepping on the 2nd Amendment just as much as the rest of them, but I find it the height of hypocrisy that the same people who so zealously defend the 2nd amendment care so little about the rest of them. Are you not one of those people? Good, you can join me and the other 5 of us at our monthly meeting.
I don't agree with ANYTHING that is unconstitutional, you're absolutely right.
We have better things we can be doing to stop terrorists than spying on and arresting American citizens for smuggling sporks and bottles of shampoo onto airliners.
But I don't see people rallying to ban bombs and guns from our military because terrorists use them. The media also isn't spreading wide spread propaganda to 300,000,000 about how free speech is outdated and serves no purpose and how we need freedom of speech control since the news networks can do your talking for you, etc.
The 2nd Amendment is the only one being openly attacked for the most part. Hypocrisy is everywhere. The media already typically rallies against Bush on things like the Patriot Act (to name one example) and most people already know its wrong and an infringement of our rights and stand against it, but they won't protect guns with the same fervor, so somebody has to.
The reverse of what you said is even more true. Everyone who is aware of infringements on everything else are already against those things, but those same people see no problem with guns being banned. Thats why it is the one I focus on the most.