School shooting: but don't mention guns! - Page 9

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

Because I disagree with you doesn't mean either of these things. I am certainly not delusional. Brightness appears to be in the eye of the beholder - I disagree with you, therefore I am not very bright. Ho hum.

I think a country is safer if civilians do not own guns. This appears to be backed up by gun related crime statistics from the UK.

my interpretation is as follows. You don't want to give up your guns not because you disagree with my position, but because it's your right to carry them and you don't wish that right to be restricted by law because you personally are a responsible gun owner.

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.

I said it in that manner because that's the position people seem to take. That if we just banned guns then this wouldn't happen. But it WOULD happen. The guns are not the reason these things happen. The guns are the tools of expression. The cause is the crazed mind of the shooter. and we all know that if a human wants to do something bad enough, he will find a way to do it.

The UK doesn't border a 3rd world country so acquiring guns would be a lot more difficult than it is here where the Mexican Cartels would ship them in by the truckload.

Guns aren't the motive for these crimes. Banning guns won't do a damn thing. and using another country as supposed "proof" is a fallacy as another country doesn't have the same culture, issues, population....etc that our country has.

I'm not a gun owner, but any govt who has the power to take away the guns of it's citizens is not somewhere I am comfortable living. Some of you seem to be okay with being babysat by tyranny, not me.

lionking · 14th December 2012, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Back in July everyone was horrified with the shooting in that cinema. In 6 months or sometime next year there will be another one. This is simply the price Americans are more than willing to pay to uphold their constitutional rights.

A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price of America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, or simply put up with atrocities like this.

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse.

We are loaded with guns, and would remain so indefinitely even if guns were banned totally. So, criminals in the USA will always have guns, imo. The country is too big and too free and armed way too well for a ban to do much for a very long time, if ever.

They banned alcohol once.

We have our Constitution, which there is disagreement about, but so far, we still have it on our side.

As far as taking my guns? They fell out of my boat the other day while I was out fishing off Myrtle Beach...

Damn shame...

joesixpack · 14th December 2012, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster

Not that it's easy to get dynamite these days, but there are a variety of ways to kill people.

I'm not saying one way or another as far as gun laws go (thought I have a very definite opinion I don't want to go into here) but the questions we are asking should be more related to "why do people do this and how can we identify them before they act?" The gun discussion seems highly unproductive.

ETA Damn! DrSid beat me to it

lionking · 14th December 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Some of you seem to be okay with being babysat by tyranny, not me.

Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.

Pup · 14th December 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights.

I think it's more of a chicken-and-egg thing. The hard part is figuring whether gun bans cause less violence, or less violence causes gun bans.

If a society doesn't care whether they own guns, it's the kind of society less likely to have violent crime, so they're okay with banning guns. But it's not the banning of guns that reduces crime, it's the lack of interest in owning guns which both makes voters okay with banning of guns and makes the crime less likely.

The US isn't the kind of society to want to ban guns, at least not now, so we're also the kind of society where violent crime is more likely.

Personally, I think the success of a gun ban in the US at this point in time can be extrapolated by looking at places where guns and other weapons are already virtually banned, like in schools.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chris L

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?

That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.

Safe-Keeper · 14th December 2012, 02:45 PM

When gun control is discussed normally: Damned commies! Don't you see that I need to be allowed to own rifles and machine guns, because only then can I adequately defend myself and my great nation!

When guns kill innocents: Bah! I could kill just as many with a knife! Are you stupid commies really thick enough to think guns have the least impact on a person's ability to kill people?

Edit:

Quote:

Guns aren't the motive for these crimes. Banning guns won't do a damn thing. and using another country as supposed "proof" is a fallacy as another country doesn't have the same culture, issues, population....etc that our country has.

Wow, can I call 'em or what

?

------------------

Quote:

You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them?

Don't tell me that "deterrents" is a new phenomenon to you.

Does locking your door keep out determined burglars? Of course not, anyone can just break a window... but we still lock our doors. Why? Deterrent.

Either way, stereotyping people into "lawful" and "dishonest" is childish black-and-white thinking that society should have outgrown decades ago. This isn't Duckburg, where you have the law versus the Beagle Boys. In reality, people shift in and out of "lawful" and "criminal" all the time, and for all kinds of reasons.

Quote:

With 40%(?) of the homicides in the United State non-gun related, do you really think there was big chance that this deranged person would have never tried to kill anyone if he didn't have a gun? I am not arguing that he could have killed more or less with a non-gun method, but it appears that you claim the gun was somehow to blame and not the person.

Of course not, let's not be ridiculous here. I mean, look at all the school massacres carried out by knife-wielding assailants! Clearly this proves that...
...oh. ****.

(though, I admit I am kind of amused by the mental image of a kitchen knife-wielding Breivik chasing kids around on Utøya yelling "stop, dammit! Heel! Sit! Down! Stay where you are so I can stab youuuuu!"

).

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

What is your opposing argument?

The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.

I'm referring to a ban. and govt telling it's citizens "oh well, we decided that you can't have those anymore" is tyrannical behavior.

I DO think that there should be some sort of background eval for gun ownership. Though,like I said before, this really wouldn't do a whole lot as someone can always just by a gun illegally off the street and sidestep the process.

I've never been a fan of making the entire class miss recess because one kid couldn't stop talking. Punishing law abiding people due to the offenses of a tiny minority is reactionary nonsense.

Ranb · 14th December 2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.

Perhaps you are aware that every convenience store in the USA that wants to sell guns can do so.

The FFL is issued on demand to anyone who fills out the forms properly.

Ranb

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster

Not that it's easy to get dynamite these days, but there are a variety of ways to kill people.

I'm not saying one way or another as far as gun laws go (thought I have a very definite opinion I don't want to go into here) but the questions we are asking should be more related to "why do people do this and how can we identify them before they act?" The gun discussion seems highly unproductive.

If having a gun was illegal, it would be easier to identify if a crazy person was going to use a gun to kill people.

Skeptic Ginger · 14th December 2012, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price for America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, so simply put up with atrocities like this.

Originally Posted by lionking

Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.

I don't equate the blanket statement, "constitutional rights," with a single right currently in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not the whole Constitution but gun rights are often tossed out there as if that single Amendment represents everything this country stands for.

It's not even clear said Amendment refers to today's gun ownership. It's worded as something saying the people have a right to bear arms in case they need to overthrow the government, or in case they're called up to fight for it.

Quote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ranb · 14th December 2012, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.

So why jump in with the others making loony claims? It does nothing to support your claim at all.

Ranb

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.

No, the opposing argument is that he would have gotten a gun anyway.

Why is it that you seem unable to formulate an opinion that isn't EXTREME CRAZY BAD PEOPLE WANT GUNS! or BAN ALL GUNS!!!

There's a heck of a lot of middle ground there ya know......

LTC8K6 · 14th December 2012, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.

Okay. Will we still have to fill out the useless 4473 form each time?

Well anyway, I am resigned to that fact that more restrictions are coming and I will just have to deal with it.

They will be silly restrictions, and they won't do anything to stop a nut from shooting up a school, but I am certain they are coming, and that's that.

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

If having a gun was illegal, it would be easier to identify if a crazy person was going to use a gun to kill people.

stundie worthy.............

Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality.

dafydd · 14th December 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price for America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, so simply put up with atrocities like this.

Hear hear!

leftysergeant · 14th December 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Chris L

New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago all have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the country. They are also some of the easiest places in the country to get a gun to use in a crime.

Their murder rates are also quite high.

John Mekki · 14th December 2012, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

CNN reporting a school shooting.

How dare they mention guns might be involved. Do they just want us to turn into the USSR with guns banned and everyone forced to worship Obama?

That's my prediction of a reaction on at least one gun forum before the day is over.

So the question is: why are guns the one subject that cannot be discussed civilly?

Holy crap: someone on CNN just said it couldn't be a student reacting to bullying because it isn't a high school so bullying doesn't happen there!

I do not see much the point of this fuss..
Again..

29 people killed.
I feel sorry for them, but who are they in the economy of all the lives of the world?
So far, all the shootings that happened in the US barely affected the lives of 0.01% of the citizens, so why are they of any relevancy for the great majority of the people?

In other words..
Why should we care?

Ampulla of Vater · 14th December 2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun.

No, it is the nutcase shooting the gun.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Ranb

So why jump in with the others making loony claims? It does nothing to support your claim at all.

Ranb

My "argument" is simple disbelief that this guy would've found a way to kill all those children if he didn't have access to a gun. I think it's more believable to think that without a gun, the guy would've decided not to try because of the difficulty of committing the task without a gun.

lionking · 14th December 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

No, the opposing argument is that he would have gotten a gun anyway.

It doesn't have to be that way. Handguns are extremely hard to get hold of in Australia. The problem is that somebody in the US can just snap, and be able to easily arm himself with deadly weapons and go on a spur of the moment killing spree.

scarlettinlondon · 14th December 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

stundie worthy.............

Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality.

No. If you criminalise gun ownership you get the assumption that guys carrying guns are up to no good automatically. There are fewer about and so they are less easy to get hold of and if you do so, you are already breaking the law. You are therefore more likely to get to the naughty fellas before they shoot anyone up, because they can be arrested for just having a gun.

you still cannot prevent the very determined shooter, we can't totally eradicate it in the UK. It's HARDER to get them thats all, it's criminal to get them so you can get stopped at any point along the gun ownership route. Asking for one, going to a pub to buy one, selling one in the pub, advertising one. You just can't get them as easily. therefore we have fewer gun related crimes in the UK, not no crime.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

stundie worthy.............

Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality.

Guy has gun. Police arrest him for having a gun. There you go.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Their murder rates are also quite high.

Amazing. The more people have guns, the higher the murder rate.

Chris L · 14th December 2012, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Their murder rates are also quite high.

So gun control != safer.

Rolfe · 14th December 2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by John Mekki

I do not see much the point of this fuss..
Again..

29 people killed.
I feel sorry for them, but who are they in the economy of all the lives of the world?
So far, all the shootings that happened in the US barely affected the lives of 0.01% of the citizens, so why are they of any relevancy for the great majority of the people?

In other words..
Why should we care?

People care. If we stop caring, we stop being human.

A couple of years ago, I was sitting in the dining room of Churches House in Dunblane, eating dinner. Idly, I admired a pretty cross-stitch picture framed on the wall. It showed a sunlit school playground, with a number of children playing with balls, skipping ropes and such things. A female teacher watched over them benignly from a doorway.

Slowly, realisation dawned. Sixteen children, caught forever in a sunlit moment. One teacher. The words, in neat cross-stitch along the bottom. "Remember the children."

I burst into tears right there.

If we stop feeling about this, we stop being human.

Rolfe.

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 02:59 PM

Look folks, making things illegal has never stopped anyone from doing anything they really wanted to do. Booze, drugs...whatever it was.

In a country this vast, this populated and this pop culture driven, these sorts of things are gonna happen sometimes. It's awful and i wish there was some way we could stop it . But unless we have 24 hr Big Brother watching every single person ,it's just impossible.

It's easy to look back and go 'well he was acting strangely leading up to the final days...blahblahblah" but we can't lock people up cuz we think they might commit a crime. We KNOW that a gun ban won't work as people who are planning on committing these sorts outbursts don't care about legality, they don't even plan on living....

I wish there was an easy solution to this, but I don't think there is really anything we can do to stop it. I guess we could ban media coverage of it. But that's an even worse case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (and that probably wouldn't do much to stop it either).

a damaged mind is impossible to predict, and a person who has fully committed to dying in a hail of gunfire is really impossible to stop. There's nothing rational going on there that can be predicted or reasoned with.

It's a terrible tragedy, and there will be others. It's the price we pay to have the freedom to go where we want, say what we want, own what we want and do what we want.

It sucks, but the alternative is worse

scarlettinlondon · 14th December 2012, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

No, it is the nutcase shooting the gun.

Without the gun you just get the nutcase.

There is a gun involved in every single shooting. The fella on the other end of the gun may be a nutcase. He may be disturbed. He may be depressed. He may be angry. He may be suicidal. He may be sad.

The gun is always a gun. Any one of thse fellas described above might have not shot children if they didn't have access to a gun.

Ranb · 14th December 2012, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

It doesn't have to be that way. Handguns are extremely hard to get hold of in Australia. The problem is that somebody in the US can just snap, and be able to easily arm himself with deadly weapons and go on a spur of the moment killing spree.

Would you be saying the same thing about rifles or shotguns if those types were used? If I recall, there is no shortage of those kinds of fireams in the USA and where you live.

Ranb

Chris L · 14th December 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

Without the gun you just get the nutcase.

There is a gun involved in every single shooting. The fella on the other end of the gun may be a nutcase. He may be disturbed. He may be depressed. He may be angry. He may be suicidal. He may be sad.

The gun is always a gun. Any one of thse fellas described above might have not shot children if they didn't have access to a gun.

Again you seem to equate not being able to own a gun legally with not being able to own a gun.

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon

No. If you criminalise gun ownership you get the assumption that guys carrying guns are up to no good automatically. There are fewer about and so they are less easy to get hold of and if you do so, you are already breaking the law. You are therefore more likely to get to the naughty fellas before they shoot anyone up, because they can be arrested for just having a gun.

you still cannot prevent the very determined shooter, we can't totally eradicate it in the UK. It's HARDER to get them thats all, it's criminal to get them so you can get stopped at any point along the gun ownership route. Asking for one, going to a pub to buy one, selling one in the pub, advertising one. You just can't get them as easily. therefore we have fewer gun related crimes in the UK, not no crime.

How many people on their way to commit a massive public shooting have been stopped due to being spotted with guns? none that i know of. How is it that you think they are going to be caught? They weren't walking down the street with their guns for weeks leading up to the shootings.

You buy an illegal weapon, you take it home, you put it in your basement, you plot your insane attack. You drive to the scene and pull out your guns and start shooting. I see no prevention there.

Redtail · 14th December 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Guy has gun. Police arrest him for having a gun. There you go.

How would you know he had a gun until he decided to use it?

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 03:05 PM

and pardon me for saying this, but anyone who doesn't live in the USA has no business telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing in regards to our constitution.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Chris L

So gun control != safer.

I think the claim was made that there isn't much control of the guns in those places.

thaiboxerken · 14th December 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

Look folks, making things illegal has never stopped anyone from doing anything they really wanted to do. Booze, drugs...whatever it was.

Why have laws at all, then?

ehcks · 14th December 2012, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

and pardon me for saying this, but anyone who doesn't live in the USA has no business telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing in regards to our constitution.

Then I suppose America and Americans should stop telling other countries what to do with their laws?

StankApe · 14th December 2012, 03:07 PM

lol, your silly fanatic OMG WE ARE ALL DOOMED! thinking is cracking me up

your opinion is akin to the leftist Jack Chick

Chris L · 14th December 2012, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I think the claim was made that there isn't much control of the guns in those places.

If you are a law abiding citizen there is. If you aren't, not so much.

14th December 2012, 02:36 PM	#321
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon Because I disagree with you doesn't mean either of these things. I am certainly not delusional. Brightness appears to be in the eye of the beholder - I disagree with you, therefore I am not very bright. Ho hum. I think a country is safer if civilians do not own guns. This appears to be backed up by gun related crime statistics from the UK. my interpretation is as follows. You don't want to give up your guns not because you disagree with my position, but because it's your right to carry them and you don't wish that right to be restricted by law because you personally are a responsible gun owner. I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights. I said it in that manner because that's the position people seem to take. That if we just banned guns then this wouldn't happen. But it WOULD happen. The guns are not the reason these things happen. The guns are the tools of expression. The cause is the crazed mind of the shooter. and we all know that if a human wants to do something bad enough, he will find a way to do it. The UK doesn't border a 3rd world country so acquiring guns would be a lot more difficult than it is here where the Mexican Cartels would ship them in by the truckload. Guns aren't the motive for these crimes. Banning guns won't do a damn thing. and using another country as supposed "proof" is a fallacy as another country doesn't have the same culture, issues, population....etc that our country has. I'm not a gun owner, but any govt who has the power to take away the guns of it's citizens is not somewhere I am comfortable living. Some of you seem to be okay with being babysat by tyranny, not me.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 02:39 PM	#322
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,689	Originally Posted by Sunstealer Back in July everyone was horrified with the shooting in that cinema. In 6 months or sometime next year there will be another one. This is simply the price Americans are more than willing to pay to uphold their constitutional rights. A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price of America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, or simply put up with atrocities like this.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill Last edited by lionking; 14th December 2012 at 02:57 PM.

14th December 2012, 02:40 PM	#323
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,696	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon Of course I know that. But the fact that they are illegal reduces opportunity to get hold of them, surely you must see that? Particularly for these adolescent school shootings. Also it means that anyone going around armed (or having a gun at home) is automatically comitting a criminal offernce and therefore can be arrested before they do anything worse. We are loaded with guns, and would remain so indefinitely even if guns were banned totally. So, criminals in the USA will always have guns, imo. The country is too big and too free and armed way too well for a ban to do much for a very long time, if ever. They banned alcohol once. We have our Constitution, which there is disagreement about, but so far, we still have it on our side. As far as taking my guns? They fell out of my boat the other day while I was out fishing off Myrtle Beach... Damn shame...
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:42 PM	#324
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,430	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken I have a hard time believing this guy would've killed people if he didn't have access to guns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster Not that it's easy to get dynamite these days, but there are a variety of ways to kill people. I'm not saying one way or another as far as gun laws go (thought I have a very definite opinion I don't want to go into here) but the questions we are asking should be more related to "why do people do this and how can we identify them before they act?" The gun discussion seems highly unproductive. ETA Damn! DrSid beat me to it
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't. Last edited by joesixpack; 14th December 2012 at 03:05 PM.

14th December 2012, 02:43 PM	#325
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,689	Originally Posted by StankApe Some of you seem to be okay with being babysat by tyranny, not me. Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

14th December 2012, 02:43 PM	#326
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon I wonder if there is anyone here that holds the position that they feel that gun ownership contributes significantly to gun related crime but they think that their right to hold a gun outweighs this consideration. I only seem to hear arguments that say well, murderers could kill with bombs/garden furniture/grenades/rabid rabbits etc. It would feel more honest to me if there was anyone who had the viewpoint that widespread gun ownership contributed to crime significantly but that they just didn't care about that compared to their own rights. I think it's more of a chicken-and-egg thing. The hard part is figuring whether gun bans cause less violence, or less violence causes gun bans. If a society doesn't care whether they own guns, it's the kind of society less likely to have violent crime, so they're okay with banning guns. But it's not the banning of guns that reduces crime, it's the lack of interest in owning guns which both makes voters okay with banning of guns and makes the crime less likely. The US isn't the kind of society to want to ban guns, at least not now, so we're also the kind of society where violent crime is more likely. Personally, I think the success of a gun ban in the US at this point in time can be extrapolated by looking at places where guns and other weapons are already virtually banned, like in schools.
Pup Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 3,590

14th December 2012, 02:43 PM	#327
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Originally Posted by Chris L You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them? That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:45 PM	#328
Safe-Keeper Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sogndal, Norway Posts: 7,124	When gun control is discussed normally: Damned commies! Don't you see that I need to be allowed to own rifles and machine guns, because only then can I adequately defend myself and my great nation! When guns kill innocents: Bah! I could kill just as many with a knife! Are you stupid commies really thick enough to think guns have the least impact on a person's ability to kill people? Edit: Quote: Guns aren't the motive for these crimes. Banning guns won't do a damn thing. and using another country as supposed "proof" is a fallacy as another country doesn't have the same culture, issues, population....etc that our country has. Wow, can I call 'em or what? ------------------ Quote: You do know don't you, that banning gun ownership for civilians doesn't really keep civilians (the kind who use them to break the law) from having them? Don't tell me that "deterrents" is a new phenomenon to you. Does locking your door keep out determined burglars? Of course not, anyone can just break a window... but we still lock our doors. Why? Deterrent. Either way, stereotyping people into "lawful" and "dishonest" is childish black-and-white thinking that society should have outgrown decades ago. This isn't Duckburg, where you have the law versus the Beagle Boys. In reality, people shift in and out of "lawful" and "criminal" all the time, and for all kinds of reasons. Quote: With 40%(?) of the homicides in the United State non-gun related, do you really think there was big chance that this deranged person would have never tried to kill anyone if he didn't have a gun? I am not arguing that he could have killed more or less with a non-gun method, but it appears that you claim the gun was somehow to blame and not the person. Of course not, let's not be ridiculous here. I mean, look at all the school massacres carried out by knife-wielding assailants! Clearly this proves that... ...oh. ****. (though, I admit I am kind of amused by the mental image of a kitchen knife-wielding Breivik chasing kids around on Utøya yelling "stop, dammit! Heel! Sit! Down! Stay where you are so I can stab youuuuu!" ).
	Last edited by Safe-Keeper; 14th December 2012 at 02:54 PM.

14th December 2012, 02:45 PM	#329
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Originally Posted by Ranb What is your opposing argument? The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:47 PM	#330
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by lionking Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it. I'm referring to a ban. and govt telling it's citizens "oh well, we decided that you can't have those anymore" is tyrannical behavior. I DO think that there should be some sort of background eval for gun ownership. Though,like I said before, this really wouldn't do a whole lot as someone can always just by a gun illegally off the street and sidestep the process. I've never been a fan of making the entire class miss recess because one kid couldn't stop talking. Punishing law abiding people due to the offenses of a tiny minority is reactionary nonsense.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 02:47 PM	#331
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,116	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store. Perhaps you are aware that every convenience store in the USA that wants to sell guns can do so. The FFL is issued on demand to anyone who fills out the forms properly. Ranb

14th December 2012, 02:47 PM	#332
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Originally Posted by joesixpack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_Disaster Not that it's easy to get dynamite these days, but there are a variety of ways to kill people. I'm not saying one way or another as far as gun laws go (thought I have a very definite opinion I don't want to go into here) but the questions we are asking should be more related to "why do people do this and how can we identify them before they act?" The gun discussion seems highly unproductive. If having a gun was illegal, it would be easier to identify if a crazy person was going to use a gun to kill people.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:48 PM	#333
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,646	Originally Posted by lionking A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price for America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, so simply put up with atrocities like this. Originally Posted by lionking Rationality goes out the door yet again. Having restrictions on gun ownership is not tyranny. Nothing like it. I don't equate the blanket statement, "constitutional rights," with a single right currently in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is not the whole Constitution but gun rights are often tossed out there as if that single Amendment represents everything this country stands for. It's not even clear said Amendment refers to today's gun ownership. It's worded as something saying the people have a right to bear arms in case they need to overthrow the government, or in case they're called up to fight for it. Quote: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 14th December 2012 at 02:49 PM.*

14th December 2012, 02:48 PM	#334
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,116	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go. So why jump in with the others making loony claims? It does nothing to support your claim at all. Ranb

14th December 2012, 02:49 PM	#335
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken The opposing argument is that this guy would've found another way to kill all those children if he didn't have a gun. No one has given any evidence to support the claim, but there you go. No, the opposing argument is that he would have gotten a gun anyway. Why is it that you seem unable to formulate an opinion that isn't EXTREME CRAZY BAD PEOPLE WANT GUNS! or BAN ALL GUNS!!! There's a heck of a lot of middle ground there ya know......
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 02:49 PM	#336
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,696	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken That's the argument. Therefore, let's sell guns over the counter at every convenience store. Okay. Will we still have to fill out the useless 4473 form each time? Well anyway, I am resigned to that fact that more restrictions are coming and I will just have to deal with it. They will be silly restrictions, and they won't do anything to stop a nut from shooting up a school, but I am certain they are coming, and that's that.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

14th December 2012, 02:50 PM	#337
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken If having a gun was illegal, it would be easier to identify if a crazy person was going to use a gun to kill people. stundie worthy............. Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 02:52 PM	#338
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	Originally Posted by lionking A rare piece of honesty in a thread like this. Yes, events like this are the price for America's constitutionally-guaranteed gun culture. Most of the civilised world is not prepared to pay this sort of price. It's time for the US to have a proper debate about the costs and benefits of easily availability of weapons, so simply put up with atrocities like this. Hear hear!
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

14th December 2012, 02:52 PM	#339
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Chris L New York City, Washington DC, and Chicago all have some of the strictest gun ownership laws in the country. They are also some of the easiest places in the country to get a gun to use in a crime. Their murder rates are also quite high.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

14th December 2012, 02:52 PM	#340
John Mekki Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 537	Originally Posted by Travis CNN reporting a school shooting. How dare they mention guns might be involved. Do they just want us to turn into the USSR with guns banned and everyone forced to worship Obama? That's my prediction of a reaction on at least one gun forum before the day is over. So the question is: why are guns the one subject that cannot be discussed civilly? Holy crap: someone on CNN just said it couldn't be a student reacting to bullying because it isn't a high school so bullying doesn't happen there! I do not see much the point of this fuss.. Again.. 29 people killed. I feel sorry for them, but who are they in the economy of all the lives of the world? So far, all the shootings that happened in the US barely affected the lives of 0.01% of the citizens, so why are they of any relevancy for the great majority of the people? In other words.. Why should we care?
John Mekki Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 537

14th December 2012, 02:55 PM	#341
Ampulla of Vater Muse Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: North of the White Line of Toldt Posts: 611	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun. No, it is the nutcase shooting the gun.

14th December 2012, 02:55 PM	#342
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Originally Posted by Ranb So why jump in with the others making loony claims? It does nothing to support your claim at all. Ranb My "argument" is simple disbelief that this guy would've found a way to kill all those children if he didn't have access to a gun. I think it's more believable to think that without a gun, the guy would've decided not to try because of the difficulty of committing the task without a gun.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:56 PM	#343
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,689	Originally Posted by StankApe No, the opposing argument is that he would have gotten a gun anyway. It doesn't have to be that way. Handguns are extremely hard to get hold of in Australia. The problem is that somebody in the US can just snap, and be able to easily arm himself with deadly weapons and go on a spur of the moment killing spree.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

14th December 2012, 02:56 PM	#344
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 196	Originally Posted by StankApe stundie worthy............. Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality. No. If you criminalise gun ownership you get the assumption that guys carrying guns are up to no good automatically. There are fewer about and so they are less easy to get hold of and if you do so, you are already breaking the law. You are therefore more likely to get to the naughty fellas before they shoot anyone up, because they can be arrested for just having a gun. you still cannot prevent the very determined shooter, we can't totally eradicate it in the UK. It's HARDER to get them thats all, it's criminal to get them so you can get stopped at any point along the gun ownership route. Asking for one, going to a pub to buy one, selling one in the pub, advertising one. You just can't get them as easily. therefore we have fewer gun related crimes in the UK, not no crime.
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 196

14th December 2012, 02:57 PM	#345
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Originally Posted by StankApe stundie worthy............. Pray tell , inform us how your keen insight into the criminal mind would have you identifying these people due to gun illegality. Guy has gun. Police arrest him for having a gun. There you go.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:58 PM	#346
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,995	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Their murder rates are also quite high. Amazing. The more people have guns, the higher the murder rate.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

14th December 2012, 02:58 PM	#347
Chris L Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,153	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Their murder rates are also quite high. So gun control != safer.
Chris L Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,153	__________________ "The lie is different at every level." Richard C. Hoagland

14th December 2012, 02:59 PM	#348
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Originally Posted by John Mekki I do not see much the point of this fuss.. Again.. 29 people killed. I feel sorry for them, but who are they in the economy of all the lives of the world? So far, all the shootings that happened in the US barely affected the lives of 0.01% of the citizens, so why are they of any relevancy for the great majority of the people? In other words.. Why should we care? People care. If we stop caring, we stop being human. A couple of years ago, I was sitting in the dining room of Churches House in Dunblane, eating dinner. Idly, I admired a pretty cross-stitch picture framed on the wall. It showed a sunlit school playground, with a number of children playing with balls, skipping ropes and such things. A female teacher watched over them benignly from a doorway. Slowly, realisation dawned. Sixteen children, caught forever in a sunlit moment. One teacher. The words, in neat cross-stitch along the bottom. "Remember the children." I burst into tears right there. If we stop feeling about this, we stop being human. Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

14th December 2012, 02:59 PM	#349
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Look folks, making things illegal has never stopped anyone from doing anything they really wanted to do. Booze, drugs...whatever it was. In a country this vast, this populated and this pop culture driven, these sorts of things are gonna happen sometimes. It's awful and i wish there was some way we could stop it . But unless we have 24 hr Big Brother watching every single person ,it's just impossible. It's easy to look back and go 'well he was acting strangely leading up to the final days...blahblahblah" but we can't lock people up cuz we think they might commit a crime. We KNOW that a gun ban won't work as people who are planning on committing these sorts outbursts don't care about legality, they don't even plan on living.... I wish there was an easy solution to this, but I don't think there is really anything we can do to stop it. I guess we could ban media coverage of it. But that's an even worse case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. (and that probably wouldn't do much to stop it either). a damaged mind is impossible to predict, and a person who has fully committed to dying in a hail of gunfire is really impossible to stop. There's nothing rational going on there that can be predicted or reasoned with. It's a terrible tragedy, and there will be others. It's the price we pay to have the freedom to go where we want, say what we want, own what we want and do what we want. It sucks, but the alternative is worse
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 02:59 PM	#350
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 196	Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater No, it is the nutcase shooting the gun. Without the gun you just get the nutcase. There is a gun involved in every single shooting. The fella on the other end of the gun may be a nutcase. He may be disturbed. He may be depressed. He may be angry. He may be suicidal. He may be sad. The gun is always a gun. Any one of thse fellas described above might have not shot children if they didn't have access to a gun.
scarlettinlondon Thinker Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 196

14th December 2012, 03:02 PM	#351
Ranb Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: WA USA Posts: 4,116	Originally Posted by lionking It doesn't have to be that way. Handguns are extremely hard to get hold of in Australia. The problem is that somebody in the US can just snap, and be able to easily arm himself with deadly weapons and go on a spur of the moment killing spree. Would you be saying the same thing about rifles or shotguns if those types were used? If I recall, there is no shortage of those kinds of fireams in the USA and where you live. Ranb

14th December 2012, 03:03 PM	#352
Chris L Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,153	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon Without the gun you just get the nutcase. There is a gun involved in every single shooting. The fella on the other end of the gun may be a nutcase. He may be disturbed. He may be depressed. He may be angry. He may be suicidal. He may be sad. The gun is always a gun. Any one of thse fellas described above might have not shot children if they didn't have access to a gun. Again you seem to equate not being able to own a gun legally with not being able to own a gun.
Chris L Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 1,153	__________________ "The lie is different at every level." Richard C. Hoagland

14th December 2012, 03:03 PM	#353
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by scarlettinlondon No. If you criminalise gun ownership you get the assumption that guys carrying guns are up to no good automatically. There are fewer about and so they are less easy to get hold of and if you do so, you are already breaking the law. You are therefore more likely to get to the naughty fellas before they shoot anyone up, because they can be arrested for just having a gun. you still cannot prevent the very determined shooter, we can't totally eradicate it in the UK. It's HARDER to get them thats all, it's criminal to get them so you can get stopped at any point along the gun ownership route. Asking for one, going to a pub to buy one, selling one in the pub, advertising one. You just can't get them as easily. therefore we have fewer gun related crimes in the UK, not no crime. How many people on their way to commit a massive public shooting have been stopped due to being spotted with guns? none that i know of. How is it that you think they are going to be caught? They weren't walking down the street with their guns for weeks leading up to the shootings. You buy an illegal weapon, you take it home, you put it in your basement, you plot your insane attack. You drive to the scene and pull out your guns and start shooting. I see no prevention there.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

14th December 2012, 03:03 PM	#354
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Guy has gun. Police arrest him for having a gun. There you go. How would you know he had a gun until he decided to use it?
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

14th December 2012, 03:05 PM	#355
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	and pardon me for saying this, but anyone who doesn't live in the USA has no business telling us what we should or shouldn't be doing in regards to our constitution.
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643