Gun laws?

[D3V]

I'd like to hear both sides of the story, really.



I know that there are some that admire the constitution and want to uphold it word by word. As the 2nd amendment states, that everyone bares right to a gun. Now, take into consideration this was in the 1770's when the constitution was written and we were still under attack by our ex-enemies from the East.

I will place my opinions in later on, but really do you feel that Firearms, any type should be allowed in the States? There are so many angles to take on almost everything..




.....Discuss.

[Willkillforfood]

I'm a hick so I'm all for guns. A neighbor of mine just got his wrists and throat slit open with a razorblade. That's pretty fucking deadly in its own sense, so what would it matter if he was shot?

[Thanatos]

I'm going to be purchasing a firearm very soon.

i needz protection yo

[Adrenachrome]

I have several handguns and a Chinese SKS, I'll keep this comment short, basicly if you make it illegal to own and or carry fire arms then you make certain that criminals are the only ones with the guns, Also, You have two ways to get what you want, one is reason and negotiation, the other is force, if we as citizens retain and excersice our right to own and carry then that forces others to reason with us, take away the guns and our rights and property can be taken by force, and I'm not with that

[D3V]

I'm not exactly sure where I stand on Gun Laws.

I mean there are so many sides of the argument really, I don't really feel that everyone should be entitled to a gun, hence criminals, ex-cons, people with violent backgrounds, etc. I think it should be somewhat harder to obtain a firearm, no matter what it is being that of a hunting rifle or handgun, whatever.

Also, being that most criminals aren't actually purchasing these guns from stores/gun shops they are usually stolen or bought stolen, so that aspect doesn't really help.

I think it's just the mentality of owning a gun, people act cocky with them, show them off way too much, like if I were to purchase one it would stay concealed in the same location and I wouldn't anybody probably other than my girlfriend know about it, or whomever is real close to me, family-etc.

That's just me though.

[Adrenachrome]

I don't act cocky because of my weapons I cannot speak for others but when ever I get really angry, usually in traffic, I do sometimes let my thoughts sliip to blowing someone's head off, but in fact, my guns keep me grounded, sorta like nuclear weapons, I KNOW that I would win the arguement, and I immediatly calm down because I know that while that motherfucker would be dead, my life would also be over, and I'd have to sit in prison or even face the death penalty, Violent offenders, felons, domestic violence convicts cannot own guns, and actually carrying a conceaL and carry permit, you cannot let it be seen in public o r you could get a citation, while without the permit you can carry openly in public, except for crowded public areas like wal mart, carnivals, ect, You also are forbidden to carry concealed or otherwise a weapon into an establishment that either servs alcohol or prohibits the firearms in their venue

[Demosthenes]

The reason I think the second amendment is antiquated and should be expunged:

I do sometimes let my thoughts sliip to blowing someone's head off,

I KNOW that I would win the arguement,

The moment you take someone's life, you've lost the argument.

[D3V]

Yeah, just you talking about your gun makes you sound more arrogant, and I know you disagree, but you did contradict yourself in saying you don't get cocky, and then right after say you'd blow somebody elses head off.

[Adrenachrome]

Maybe you guys didn't understand my point, When I do get angry knowing that I could destroy someone els' life aswell as my own, immediatly calms me down and I think about how ignorant that kind of thinkinig is, and besides I could put the claw of my hammer in the back of the antagonizers head and have the same effect, want to ban hammers too'question mark' No matter which way you look at it, taking away the lawful ability to own a firearm, immedialy empowers criminals, they will KNOW that Johnny Doogooder over there does NOT have protection, not to mention the Government, with our arms they cannot take but so much liberty from us or we will stand up for our selves, take away our armament and they caN lock us down without consequence

[D3V]

You know that, the 2nd amendment was written when we were at war with our newly found friends from the East right?.. We don't have anything happening at home that we need to defend from.. really.

Just take this philosophy, would the world be better off with everyone owning guns, or nobody owning guns?

[Adrenachrome]

Nobody owning guns is impossible, and the 2nd amendment was written so the people could protect themslves from the government, I understand your point bro but the fact is that if you make it illegal to own guns, law abiding citizens like myself will either become criminals, or defensless against criminals who will be the only ones with the guns, even if you could make all guns vanish, if someone wants to kill someone they will find another weapon, you cannot take the evil out of people, it'll be a knife or a stick or a vehicle or a rock, or a damn bow and arrow, point is, guns dont kill people, stupid motherfuckers with guns kill people, One thing you have correct is there would be less accidental gun deaths, but that doesn't outweigh the need to protect ourselves from criminals, and criminal government

[D3V]

I see your point as well, which is why I go back to my origional argument which is that we just need to make it harder to obtain a firearm/concealed weapons permit...

[Adrenachrome]

well here in VA you can go just buy one, but they do a national background check, and my record has a couple bullshit misdomeanors on it so they make me wait a day, and the conceal permit you gotta go to the courthouse and jump through hoops, but there's some loopholes in gun show laws they have just recently closed so that even a private dealer has to do proper background checks, and I'm all for that, I'm all for keeping violent criminals and mentally ill from being able to just go buy a gun, like the tard that shot up vtech

[Willkillforfood]

The 2nd Ammendment wasn't written because we were at war with friends from the East. The consitution was written years upon years after the Revolutionary War's conclusion.

[Adrenachrome]

If college kids in universities like Northern Illinois and Va Tech were permitted to legally carry guns those fucks would not have killed or injured near as many students, better yet if the shooters knew that the students were allowed to carry protection they might not have even tried that shit, just a thought

[!King_Amazon!]

The second amendment was written long before assault rifles were around. Back then they probably had muskets that were highly inacurate, and pistols that were also inacurate. You couldn't just go mow down a bunch of people at once. At most, you could take out a couple of people if you were really pissed at them.

I'm all for someone being able to have a pistol for personal protection, but there is absolutely no reason for anyone but our national defense and law enforcement to have assault rifles. Personally, I'd rather people not even have pistols, but I would be willing to accept that.

The most common argument I hear is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "guns are just inanimate objects." Does this mean I should be allowed to have bombs too? An assault rifle is pretty comparable to a small bomb in the possible casualties.

Bottom line, it's unnecessary to have anything more than maybe a pistol, and even then they should be highly regulated.

[Adrenachrome]

You're living in the fantasy world where the people have nothing to fear from their government, and that if you make guns illegal no one will have them, you don't seem to understand the FACT that if you criminalize gun ownership ONLY criminals will have them, Also you need to understand the FACT that we WILL need to defend ourselves from our own government, which most certainly does NOT have our liberty and best interests in mind all the time, they are power hungry, greedy and corrupt, I usually use the following quote against Fascist and or nationalized health care, "People who are willing to trade liberty for security are deserving of neither" -Winston Churchill Now that is not exact but you should get the point, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my assault rifle, speaking of national defense, Imagine you are an enemy of the US, would you want to invade a country where it is known that the average citizen is armed, Bottom line is YOU CANNOT TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM CRIMINALS, you can only take them from good people, what sense would it make to do that, and the fact that you seem to think the government is all good and for the people is absurd, the 2nd amendment is likely a reasonn we still hold on the the few original "god given" freedoms that we were promised by the constitution and the bill of rights

[Demosthenes]

Our guns aren't what's stopping the government from imposing a military state. It's the political system itself. If that fails, they will impose a military state if they want, regardless of whether or not we have guns. It's not going to make it harder, or act as a deterrent. They will roll over us if they want to.

[Willkillforfood]

I'm all for having guns. It sucks people abuse them but if not with guns then they can use some other means of killing.

[!King_Amazon!]

Knives? Swords? It doesn't matter. That might work against a single person, but you can't walk into a mall and kill a bunch of people with a knife.

Statistics show that countries with gun restrictions have lower murder rate and equal crime rate. It might not bring the crime rate down, but it does lower the murder rate, which means it is worth it to me.

[Willkillforfood]

To each his own. Guns won't be outlawed in this country in my lifetime. You can cite whatever statistics or studies you want, being deprived our guns is distinctly unamerican.

[Grav]

Unamerican... hmm. I think that word is overused. Being "American" doesn't mean the same thing today that it did 200+ years ago... there's just no way it could. When this country began, slavery was okay, and steam power (much less electricity!) had not even been invented yet. Classical economics still worked, and it took 4 months for ships to cross the Atlantic. There were no assault rifles years ago. How can you even compare that system of government to today's?

[Willkillforfood]

Okay. Taking away guns would distinctly contrast the feelings and beliefs of many of our people.

[Grav]

Many of our people are stupid, though.

[Willkillforfood]

True. However, there's nothing wrong with responsible gun use. People are so willing to give up rights for a tiny bit more safety. Fuck that :D.

[Demosthenes]

Eric Thompson, owner of Topglock.com, is the goto guy if you need guns, especially the widely loved Glock handgun. The gentleman who killed a half-dozen people at NIU got some of his supplies at Topglock. The guy who killed all those kids at Virginia Tech last year also got some of his armaments at Topglock.com. Topglock: Your specialist in tragedy.

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/16/PH2008021601818.jpg
This man supplied some of the weaponry used in two major college mass murders. He is eager to continue supplying these weapons in the hopes that someday a good guy will shoot a badguy.

They're having a motto contest for Topglock.com. Here's my entry:

"Online Gun Suppliers don't kill innocent college students ..... Crazy guys kill innocent college students. The Online Gun Suppliers just supply them with the tools they need"

Do you have a better motto? Maybe a jingle or a limerick?

TGSCOM Inc is the name of the company owned by Thompson. TGSCOM owns about 100 different web sites, all selling guns with different advertising angles.

Thompson, of course, is cooperating with police. There have been a number of instances where Thompson has helped the police to trace down the source of a weapon, or to verify documentation on a weapon used in some crime or another. He has helped put criminals behind bars in so doing, according to his web site. It is probably fairly routine for him to have to supply documentation after the fact in murders, mass slaying, and so on.

He claims, on his site (no, you won't find a link here, go find it yourself), that he wants some day to learn that one of his guns was used to stop a tragic crime like the mass murders at Virginia Tech or NIU.

Did you catch this? If you're only paying half attention to this, please stop now and re-read all of the above and see what conclusion you can draw from it.

Eric Thompson has 100 or so web sites selling guns. He happens to have sold guns to the killers in these two major school shootings. It must be true that this guy is providing guns to thousands and thousands, and thousands of people, right?

And at this time, when the press goes to interview him, he does NOT have a list of honorable and noble uses to which his guns have been put. He does not have a list of cases where a mass murderer was about to start his slaying, and an owner of a TGSCOM-provided Glock whipped out his or her firearm and stopped the slaying.

He does have a litany of cases where he cooperated with the police in helping them run down a criminal who used a gun purchased from TGSCOM. This involves supplying paperwork required by law. Paperwork that if the NRA had its way, would not be required by law.

Eric does not have any evidence that the widespread distribution of firearms has any effect other than spreading tragedy and mayhem.

Eric Thompson should be stopped, don't you think?

"Were not just the guys who sell the guns.... we're the guys who make guns possible. Getyourglock.com....

-Greg Laden

[Adrenachrome]

oh so now the magazines that were bought are the problem, why aren't we looking at Phizer? The makers of psychotropic drugs, I know from first hand experience that drugs like prozac, and other anti depressants, fuck up your mind worse than before you took them. I never felt worse than when they put me on these types of drugs. That's the problem we need to be investigating. And if just one, just one person in that classroom was a trained firearm user there might not have been anymore than one fatality.

[Demosthenes]

oh so now the magazines that were bought are the problem, why aren't we looking at Phizer? The makers of psychotropic drugs, I know from first hand experience that drugs like prozac, and other anti depressants, fuck up your mind worse than before you took them. I never felt worse than when they put me on these types of drugs. That's the problem we need to be investigating. And if just one, just one person in that classroom was a trained firearm user there might not have been anymore than one fatality.

Alternatively, if the kid didn't have it so easy obtaining a gun, he may have been deterred in the first place.

And if we have guns in the classroom around a bunch of prideful, post-adolescent idiots there's going to be way more of a bloodbath in schools.

[Adrenachrome]

Even if guns never existed he would have went in there and killed people. You should be ashamed to assume someone is going to kill just because they have a gun, I know loads of people that own guns, and I have never met anyone that had a legal gun that had done something illegal with it. You are talking about one person in millions, so punish the rest of us just because one person fucks up, I don't think so.

I am not suggesting the classrooms be infested with guns, but that if the interested and educated gun owners wanted to carry their weapon with them these college shootings would not happen, they go to these places because they know no one around is armed, did you ever think of that?

So crazy Joe Six Pack's decided he was going to kill a bunch of people, say in Virginia Beach, Two Major malls here, Pembroke and Lynnhaven, lets say Pembroke had a sign posted that prohibits lawfully carried weapons, and say on Lynnhaven Mall's doors there is a Sign welcoming legal concealed weapons. Which mall is Joe going to go murder people in?

On the other side, A responsible gun owner like myself will either avoid Pembroke Mall or make sure I leave the pistol in the car or at home, I am not willing to jeapordize my right to own and carry my weapons. Therefore the only people that have a weapon in that mall are irresponsible gun owners and criminals, no good people with guns in there.

For the school, I do agree, there would be a higher percentage of irresponsible gun use, So how about a special conceal carry campus permit, where the students have to take a course to further educate them on safety and responsibility.

Or the Professor? WHy not?

Besides it's not like these people are going to be bustin down doors to get guns, thanks to liberal teachers unions alarming percentages of students sit in fear of guns and have no motivation to get a gun anyway, but atleast you could let those so motivated to become educated and responsible with a weapon excersize their fundamental right to bear arms. And possibly save countless lives.

[Grav]

Even if guns never existed he would have went in there and killed people.

You can't say that. It's definitely becoming a fad, and killing with guns is so impersonal and easy.

[Adrenachrome]

That is true, but a bad person with a gun can only be stopped by a good person with a gun. And all I am saying is to get more good people with guns around.

[Grav]

If you carry a gun and get into a sticky situation, you are going to use it. It's not a good idea to have people carrying handguns in their daily routine.

[Adrenachrome]

You are correct, If I'm carrying a gun and I'm threatened I will use it, you think I should just be attacked defenseless? Keep in mind that just the very sight of my gun will send a mugger packing.

[D3V]

I don't see the big obsession of "protecting" yourself. I doubt you'll ever get robbed to begin with, sure you can have a gun, But if you actually keep it somewhere, in a safe or whatnot, you may not even have time to react and get it before you're shot dead. I know you'll probably just say well atleast you gave it a shot, but that really is just irrelevant.

If you don't talk shit, and run your mouth to people, live an honest life you'll probably never, ever have anything to worry about. Get an alarm system on your house, get a couple of big-ass dogs or something, you could always go a non-lethal route to defend yourself. Pepper spray, mace, stun gun, taser, Baseball bat, any of these few could be just as effective as a gun, without the guilt of murdering somebody that's in a worse off situation that you are.

[Adrenachrome]

get a couple of big-ass dogs or something, you could always go a non-lethal route to defend yourself. Pepper spray, mace, stun gun, taser, Baseball bat, any of these few could be just as effective as a gun,


First I need you to explain just how you would stop an armed attacker with any of those things.

[Willkillforfood]

Could you find me a statistic on how many people are killed annually by guns on college campuses? Then divine that number by the total number of college students :x.

[!King_Amazon!]

Could you find me a statistic on how many people are killed annually by guns on college campuses? Then divine that number by the total number of college students :x.
547,000 Americans die every year from cancer.

There are 303,000,000 people in America.

This means that only .18% of Americans die from cancer every year.

Cancer must not be a big problem, then.

[Adrenachrome]

Well while looking for shooting statistics I came across this article: Of course, these horrors are hardly unique to the United States. In 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur in Tasmania, Australia. In the last half-dozen years, European countries-- including France, Germany and Switzerland-- have experienced multiple-victim shootings.

The worst, in Germany, resulted in 17 deaths; in Switzerland, one attack claimed the lives of 14 regional legislators. Of course, since 1997 there have been multiple attacks in the U.S., with the 13 dead at Columbine.

Prior to Virginia Tech, the two previous most deadly shootings in the U.S. were the 1991 Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Texas, which left 23 people dead, and the shooting at a California McDonald's in 1984, in which 21 people were killed.

All these attacks shared something in common: citizens were already banned from having guns in those areas. Indeed, every multiple-victim public shooting of any significant size in the United States has occurred in one of these gun-free zones.

The problem with gun-control laws is not that there isn't enough regulation, rather that it is primarily the law-abiding, not the criminals, who obey these laws.

Virginia Tech has rigorously enforced its gun-free zone policy and suspended

Up until the early 1970s, Israel had to deal with the cold reality of terrorists who would take machine guns into shopping malls, schools, and Synagogues and open fire. That type of attack doesn’t occur any more. Why? Israelis realized that armed citizens could stop such an attacker before he did much damage.

About 15 percent of Israelis are now licensed to carry weapons, and determined terrorists have to resort to less effective, secretive routes of attack such as bombing.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294954,00.html

[!King_Amazon!]

That's perfectly logical. If guns are accessable, yet banned in CERTAIN places, a criminal with any sort of common sense will target the places where guns are banned.

If they were banned EVERYWHERE, for everyone but law enforcement, and guns were not so easily accessable, there would be much less of a problem.

Regulating guns in only certain places is asking for trouble.

[Adrenachrome]

The only person you can take guns from is a law abiding citizen, you cannot make a law that criminals will not break. There's plenty of places in the world you can live that good people cannot own guns, do you think it is safer? You think no one gets shot?

Also, why can't you accept the fact that if this government gets too powerful, and we lose our liberty, these guns we have are going to be our liberty. I believe its a big part of why we still have freedom of speech and religion and other basic rights, first you take guns, then the others just dissapear in time. Because those in power know we could not defend ourselves.

Another thing, if you think making all gun sales illegal and confiscation and all that bullshit is going to mean there is no guns, get a grip. Theres like millions of tons of illegal drugs and guns alike shipped into this country every year. You are only going to take guns away from good people.

[!King_Amazon!]

The only person you can take guns from is a law abiding citizen, you cannot make a law that criminals will not break. There's plenty of places in the world you can live that good people cannot own guns, do you think it is safer? You think no one gets shot?

Also, why can't you accept the fact that if this government gets too powerful, and we lose our liberty, these guns we have are going to be our liberty. I believe its a big part of why we still have freedom of speech and religion and other basic rights, first you take guns, then the others just dissapear in time. Because those in power know we could not defend ourselves.

Another thing, if you think making all gun sales illegal and confiscation and all that bullshit is going to mean there is no guns, get a grip. Theres like millions of tons of illegal drugs and guns alike shipped into this country every year. You are only going to take guns away from good people.
But the fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong on all of your points, if you look at other countries that have gun regulation. They are not ran by a dictator, they have a much lower murder rate, and fewer criminals get their hands on guns.

[Adrenachrome]

But the fact is, all evidence points to you being wrong on all of your points.


Fact is I haven't seen any evidence that proves me wrong, it's your turn.



"Report: Murder Rates Remain Same in Tough Gun Law States"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95436&page=1
"Rising Gun Ownership Has Helped Cut Murder Rates for Americans Over 25, New Study Says"
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=482
"Stossel Links Gun Control to Higher Crime"
http://newsbusters.org/node/12556
Shows data representing states with and without conceal permits
http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/states.crime-ccw.4sep95.html
" The British government banned handguns in January 1997 but recently reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the seven years from 1996 to 2003. Since 1996, the rate of serious violent crime has soared by 88%, armed robberies by 101%, rapes by 105% and homicide by 24%."
http://www.nysun.com/article/25547

http://law.jrank.org/pages/1301/Guns-Regulation.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4706
"Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html


Yea right.

[Adrenachrome]

Knives? Swords? It doesn't matter. That might work against a single person, but you can't walk into a mall and kill a bunch of people with a knife.


KNIVES LINKED TO DARTMOUTH SLAYINGS
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-42982766.html


"There's something in criminology called the valve theory: If you shut off one avenue, another avenue opens up," said Andrew Karmen, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "If it's more difficult to get guns, people might turn to knives."
http://www.galleryofguns.com/shootingtimes/articles/displayarticles.asp?id=1829

A convicted killer who died in Folsom prison last month has been linked by DNA tests to the unsolved knife slayings of six people in the East Bay in the 1970s and early '80s, authorities said yesterday.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/03/19/MN167984.DTL

Mamoru Takuma, who is standing trial for the murder of eight students in a knife attack at Ikeda Primary School in Ikeda, Osaka Prefecture, said Thursday he had thought often about committing mass murder since his...
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10024415_ITM

A Ukrainian immigrant accused in the slayings of six relatives was found hanged in his jail cell early today
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-331150.html

'We Did It' letters eyed in NY stabbings
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080307/ap_on_go_co/times_square_blast_letters;_ylt=AtH50Zhu1gHhjkZo_j .uuJ6s0NUE (http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU)


You could kill a grip of people with a knife, you could walk the isles at wal mart slitting people's throats just as quick as shooting them, hell and not even make a sound.

You could lock a classroom door and start slicing people up, and the people in the next room wouldn't have a clue, hell atleast if you were shooting people many more would be alerted by the noise.

[D3V]

So why not just outlaw all weapons and make a mandatory self-defense course for all?

Oh, in related argument, I read on CNN today that College Students in some school in Texas I believe are pushing for the right to bear weapons in the classroom, I for one find this appalling and hope that nothing gets passed like this, I don't want to have some shithead having the right to have a gun on campus, because after that gets passed the kids will have them in the high schools etc etc. Fuck that.

[HandOfHeaven]

That right to bear arms in classrooms is bullshit. It would cause more chaos. Instead of hearing about the brawls in schools, we'd have more frequent school shootings.

[D3V]

Oh, most definately.

I totally agree, here is the link where I read the article at.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/14/campus.guns/index.html

Cincinnati student is leading advocate for college kids to be armed

At least nine states are considering legislation to allow students to carry weapons

Police chief: "I don't think the answer to bullets flying is to send more bullets flying"

"I see carrying a concealed firearm as a kind of life insurance policy," professor says


Stupid fucking kids and professors. Just think about it, that would be the worst idea, ever.

[Willkillforfood]

547,000 Americans die every year from cancer.

There are 303,000,000 people in America.

This means that only .18% of Americans die from cancer every year.

Cancer must not be a big problem, then.

Sorry, I just saw this since it was bumped. You're saying guns kill a comparable number of people on COLLEGE CAMPUSES to cancer in general? That's a bold allusion. Sensationalism at it's worst, KA. I expected more ;).

[!King_Amazon!]

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

[Willkillforfood]

That's perfectly logical. If guns are accessable, yet banned in CERTAIN places, a criminal with any sort of common sense will target the places where guns are banned.

If they were banned EVERYWHERE, for everyone but law enforcement, and guns were not so easily accessable, there would be much less of a problem.

Regulating guns in only certain places is asking for trouble.

Sure, if you banned guns in general they might be harder to access for the average person. There will be a huge market for importing illegal firearms much like modern drug smuggling. Millions if not billions that would be spent on domestically produced firearms will be sent to other countries, quite possibly to terrorism sponsoring agents. Banning stuff outright is working so well. Look at the war on drugs and prohibition.

Anyways, it's not like all the guns in this country are in dealers' hands right now. There are literally generations of firearms in this country. To rid the country of ALL of them would require some sort of authoritarian police state.

[Willkillforfood]

That wasn't my point. My point was that it's a relatively small amount of people, if you look at the big picture, but cancer is still a big problem.

Why don't you outlaw cars? We'll all be a lot safer then and you're for sure hundreds of times more likely to die from a car accident than be shot on a college campus. You act like it's a huge plague that kills many thousands of students a year. No, it's the exception not the rule. SENSATIONALISM!

[Willkillforfood]

Alternatively, if the kid didn't have it so easy obtaining a gun, he may have been deterred in the first place.

And if we have guns in the classroom around a bunch of prideful, post-adolescent idiots there's going to be way more of a bloodbath in schools.

Alternatively, if the media didn't give attention to these kids he might not have wanted to get a gun and blow them all away. They don't need the media immortalizing them once they blow people away. They need love while they're still stable. The level of detail some of these kids put in is just crazy. Thank God they're using guns and explosives. You don't have to aim for that.

[Demosthenes]

Alternatively, if the media didn't give attention to these kids he might not have wanted to get a gun and blow them all away.

Blaming it on the media is simple. Shifting the blame from the poor, emotionally troubled teen to the ruthless media is easy. However, it is nothing more than irresponsibly exculpating the perpetrator. The kid pulled the trigger; not the media. The gun was a vital part to implementing his plan; not the media. This is what we know. What his motivation behind the shooting is mere speculation.

[Willkillforfood]

Blaming it on the media is simple. Shifting the blame from the poor, emotionally troubled teen to the ruthless media is easy. However, it is nothing more than irresponsibly exculpating the perpetrator. The kid pulled the trigger; not the media. The gun was a vital part to implementing his plan; not the media. This is what we know. What his motivation behind the shooting is mere speculation.

Just like saying if he hadn't had the gun he would have been deterred is speculative. You can't say these things because he did have a gun and we don't know what would have happened.

It's pretty easy to speculate the continuous coverage given to these troubled youths who end it all riddling people with bullets is an incentive. These kids are martyrs to other fucked-up kids. If it hadn't been popular in the news perhaps some of these tragedies would not have happened. Just like reporting famous suicides statistically increases suicides near the time of the reporting (at least according to my psychology professor who is a published doctor.)

Am I advocating censoring the media? No. I'm for rights. I'm sorry some people have to die, but just like how I don't agree with the over zealous anti-terror measures that are taken. I don't believe taking a right away from people is the right thing to do. I don't think tylenol should be outlawed if a bunch of people kill themselves with it. After all, I don't particularly like headaches :).

[-Spector-]

I have a drug charge so I'm not aloud to buy a hand gun. :(

[Asamin]

Ooooo, ouch! One of my favorite things to do is go out back and shoot the old .22. But kids having that on campus would really piss me off. I just might end up needing to bring mine for self defense.

[Wallow]

Maybe in future years every citizen will need a gun for self defense. You never know what might happen. But has everone noticed that school and college shootings has gone up? It's like where are all these psychopaths coming from...:weird:

[Willkillforfood]

http://www.svrc.net/Files/Murders.pdf

I'd blame it on the culture. Then again, there was a famous shooting at a texas university by an ex-marine that racked up quite the body count also.

[Asamin]

It is defiantly culture. We grow up knowing nothing but violence so when we can we act violent.

[D3V]

Allowing guns on campus would be the worst possible scenario.

[Asamin]

It would make bulling so much easier. I would most likely be the target yet again. I worked so hard to get rid of that.

[Wallow]

Asamin, do you mean bullying by guns :confused: what the hell. The cops would stop that before it would start. And the body count and suicides would be tremendous if bullying went to that lvl (wait, doesn't that already happen in Philly right now?).

[Dar_Win]

Chinese SKS
I have a Yugoslavian SKS :D (among other guns). Fun gun to shoot and cheap ammo ftw.

[Willkillforfood]

I'm neutral about guns on campus. I can see both ways and I'm definitely not expert enough to make a judgment.

[hotdog]

I don't care about guns or gun laws. In my opinion they are just like a hammer or a saw. A tool. Nothing more and nothing less.

[Demosthenes]

But they are a tool designed explicitly for their efficacy in ending life.

Welcome back, by the way.

[Asamin]

Asamin, do you mean bullying by guns :confused: what the hell. The cops would stop that before it would start. And the body count and suicides would be tremendous if bullying went to that lvl (wait, doesn't that already happen in Philly right now?).
We are talking about if Guns were allowed in school. A hypothetical situation.

[Dar_Win]

But they are a tool designed explicitly for their efficacy in ending life.

Welcome back, by the way.
I don't intend on ending any lives when I go to the shooting range.

[Demosthenes]

I don't intend on ending any lives when I go to the shooting range.

Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.

[Willkillforfood]

However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I suppose you could argue on the grounds of the word "temporary" or even "essential," but the spirit of the quote is still relevant I believe. I'm growing weary from the trend that people have been following as far as giving up rights for marginally less chance of dying.

[hotdog]

Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.

Yes but think of recent laws. One says that should you assualt anyone with any tool it counts as assualt with a deadly weapon. I know a lot of guns are made for ending life why else would you want a rifle that spits out some 200 rounds a second? But a weapon is anything that someone uses to enhance the damage done to their target. Meaning a hammer (which could be used to end life just as easy) could be labelled as such. I agree that some guns are a little ridiculous to give to someone who lacks the mental training and discipline of a soldier. No one needs to have the ability to tear another person into shreds at the pull of a trigger.

Of course no one will help me try to legalize dueling again :haha:

So my question is this. If you should take away people's guns would the people who get so enraged or tempted to kill another human being not resort to using other tools? Hammers? Knives? Rope? Chains? Shoes? Thus my arguement is not against guns but against the users. I think we should have laws that make people go through the needed training a soldier does to own a gun. Wouldn't that be a more effective law? I know many people would start riots over having their guns taken away. Because the constitution says they have the right to bear arms (which could mean they have the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall but alas no one would go with me on that one) in case their government becomes tyrannical. Of course how does a government become tyrannical when it's a democracy? Could I not then go and buy a gun and declare war on our government because they do things that I am against. Because by the end of the day when someone forces you to do something you don't want to do it's technically oppression. You can see where I would go with this. The never ending reasons as to why it would be less effective then just mentally conditioning people.

You would have less oppostion towards it. Then doing something that goes against the constitution.

EDIT: Thanks for the re-welcome. I actually forgot my password and username for the last few days lol.

[D3V]

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.

Brilliant.

[Demosthenes]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

I knew that quote was going to be brought into this.

I suppose you could argue on the grounds of the word "temporary" or even "essential," but the spirit of the quote is still relevant I believe. I'm growing weary from the trend that people have been following as far as giving up rights for marginally less chance of dying.

Of all the founding fathers of America, I respect Benjamin Franklin the most. That said, their words should not be our dogma. They may have been brilliant. They may have been right about many things. Their words may have a poetic draw that I can not hope to match. But if what they said endangers human life, if what they said is discordant with modern life, if what they said is discordant with modern evidence, fuck 'em.

That said, I agree with that quote to a large extent. I wouldn't say that they don't deserve liberty, and in my opinion everyone, regardless of how heinous, deserves life, but I agree with the spirit of that quote. But if we're arguing based on that quote, diction is important. Whether or not a liberty is essential is important. If we're fighting to keep unessential liberties and sacrificing life for these unessential liberties, we should quickly come to the realization that we have not made it out of the dark ages quite yet.

I find it so strange that people cry when a close relative dies, but they are quick to dismiss 10,000 deaths per year basically as a small margin of chance. Are we so used to violence that we are that immune to death? If that's the case, God help us.

[Willkillforfood]

Your response brings up another quote I remember. It's much more recent though. Seems like disregard for the founding fathers' wishes. This is the basis of our government and our success over the past couple centuries.

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I'm not trying to trivialize 10,000 people dying annually, but when compared to the greater population it's just not that much. There are MANY things that could be done that could reduce the amount of deaths annually by 10,000. They could lower to speed limit to a crawl, closely monitor our diets, not allow us to perform any dangerous actions. However, if we wanted to do that we'd have to get rid of more liberties.

[!King_Amazon!]

I think I said this earlier in the thread, but I think it's important that, when using the words of the founding fathers, you take them as they meant them at the time. Back then, there weren't guns readily available that could mow down a bunch of people. Usually you had one shot and you had to spend 5 minutes reloading.

[Wallow]

Yeah, it was in the civil war that we invented our first machine gun, the gattling gun. But it also had to be reloaded, and was the size of a cannon. No where near efficient as the guns we have today...

[Dar_Win]

Yet many people have them for precisely that reason.

And you too are subject to everyday human emotion. Sure, everyone likes to think they are above average. Everyone likes to think they are more in control of themselves and their emotions than the common man. Truth is, everyone is subject to the rage inherent in humans. Guns are a medium for expressing this rage in a fatal way.

I understand that you like your gun for sport. However, is it necessary to issue concealed handgun licenses for you to enjoy your sport? Is it necessary for you to keep your gun at home to enjoy your sport? Would it not be as much fun if your gun were kept at a less accessible place, such as a shooting range?

Furthermore, if basketball was the cause of 10,000 homicides per year, I would be all for illegalizing it. My main goal is preservation of human life. I think it is a worthy goal. I think it is a goal that the government should strive for. Personal liberty is great. However, when your tool endangers other's right to life, your liberty to posses that tool should be secondary.

Why would I leave something that I payed hundreds of dollars for in the possesion of someone else? What other item do we do that with?

My guns are not only for the range. I hunt probably 5 times a year and I have them in a safe. My best friends family once had their entire house robbed at gun point by 4 men. They had cut the phone line and had no weapons or way of contacting people. This was in a wealthy neighborhood. For this reason I keep my handgun in a smaller safe that is easy to open, right near my bed. I'm not paranoid but I do have the right to protect myself and I will do so if needed. Seeing the look on their faces for the next month was enough to scare me.

I will have guns as long as criminals do. I'm not going to apply for a CCW license or anything but I will keep guns in my home to protect myself and my family if I ever have one. I understand why people don't like guns and I understand why some want them banned but they need to understand that some of us wish to be able to protect ourselves.

[Willkillforfood]

Guns were efficient means of killing people then and are now. You can't say "our founding fathers were too naive to think that weapons would get more efficient." Have you read the constitution? These were some very intelligent fellows, and anyways, you can't begin to say you understand the context of their minds. No one really does.

[Asamin]

Not unless we go back in time or ressurect them. Quick! Someone cast redemption!

[hotdog]

Sadly I ran out of MP conjuring up my debate point earlier.

Although I would have to ask. How serious did they think those 4 armed men were about shooting them. Sounds to me like they were really just thieves that were good at bluffing. If there were less robbers then I might be inclined to think you would need protection but when 4 people not only rob you but manage to destroy any chance of needing to kill you it sounds like they had a plan and got some information on the people living there. Meaning that they were not there to harm anyone. Thus protection was not needed anyways.

You can always tell smart and careful people from wildly violent people when they rob a place. If they come in shooting then yes you get protection. If they come in quietly and accidently wake you up then you would know they wanted no contact with you. They most likely just wanted stuff and there would be a chance that their guns were not loaded or even usable. They were just holding them as a means of keeping you away.

You cannot just use an event like that to deal an absolute. This is no game sadly. So therefore you need to get all of the info on the event. It's not exactly an air tight case on support because for all we know the robbers were not after the people. Meaning they had no intent of assualt or abuse thus what would you protect yourself from? You need to tell people if they were thugs or sneak thieves. Sneak thieves often use their skills at acting to rob when they need to but most of the time they are gone with your stuff before you know it. A thug would be the one that comes in shooting and asks you for where all your stuff is. Thus one would conclude that he never cased the place. Those are the ones that are often caught later on anyways.

Your paragraph on the robbery would have had the opposite effect of what you intended in a case because it's really just proving that you want to own a gun out of fear. Which is not a good thing when trying to help against people who want guns banned.

[Dar_Win]

They had an Uzi an AK-47, a handgun, and a shotgun. I wouldn't try to call someones bluff after they tied up myself and my family at gunpoint, then shot both of my dogs after they tried to interfere. Protection is the very last reason I own a gun. My very first gun was given to me by my father the day I turned 18. It was the gun my grandfather bought when he turned 18, then in turn gave it to my dad when he turned 18 and my dad gave it to me. I took a liking to shooting at the range and to hunting so I bought multiple guns. I have never bought a gun with safety and protection in mind btw. I'm not some crazy redneck gun collector or anything. I have 4 guns and don't intend on buying anymore.

btw someone called the cops on me for having a gun in the back of my car the other day....:rolleyes: it visibly had a trigger lock, the chamber was open to show it wasn't loaded and I had a stack of targets (i had obviously just come from the range) this was at a 7-11

[Thanatos]

Totally unrelated, but one of my old bitchy neighbors called the cops on my apartment because my roommate was outside shooting a BB gun. She told the cops it was a rifle and that I could seriously harm someone. I explained to the cop it was just a BB gun and even showed him. He was like yeah I didn't really think it was a rifle.

Come to find out, this is the lady that has been complaining on me ever since I moved there. I think I'm going to knock on her door in the near future and ask her what the fuck her problem is. When I'm leaving for work at 8:00 in the morning, she always has her door open with a chair propped up and just glares at me. Ok, it's visibly obvious I'm going to work you fucking dyke. Leave me alone.

Old people piss me off.

[hotdog]

They had an Uzi an AK-47, a handgun, and a shotgun. I wouldn't try to call someones bluff after they tied up myself and my family at gunpoint, then shot both of my dogs after they tried to interfere. Protection is the very last reason I own a gun. My very first gun was given to me by my father the day I turned 18. It was the gun my grandfather bought when he turned 18, then in turn gave it to my dad when he turned 18 and my dad gave it to me. I took a liking to shooting at the range and to hunting so I bought multiple guns. I have never bought a gun with safety and protection in mind btw. I'm not some crazy redneck gun collector or anything. I have 4 guns and don't intend on buying anymore.

btw someone called the cops on me for having a gun in the back of my car the other day....:rolleyes: it visibly had a trigger lock, the chamber was open to show it wasn't loaded and I had a stack of targets (i had obviously just come from the range) this was at a 7-11

That is a good reason and arguement to sway people to not want guns banned. I think it's futile to ban them myself though. People will just use other tools to do the job. Instead I think they should just make people get the same mental training soldiers do. I don't know if it would help or not. I think it would. But like I said before it would be easier then getting rid of guns.

[Dark-Madness]

I often provide this example when stating why I believe we should uphold the constitution in its word for word form and continue the right to bare arms. Its a two part deal so bare with me...

If you make guns illegal, the bad guys will still have them...and there is nothing you or I can do about it because we dont want to go to jail for getting one too in order to defend ourselves.

With guns being legal, I like the idea of being in a location where some madman comes in with a gun waving around killing people. Only because I know their is a real good chance that someone else in their has one too and is probrably a better shot with it than the madman.

[hotdog]

It's bear not bare. Don't you know they meant we have the right to own a pair of bear arms?

Okay I know lame joke...

[Dark-Madness]

I'm sorry I was not aware I was in the presence of an "engwish" teacher. From now on I will do spelling and grammer checks just for you. ;)

[zonalon]

We have the right to defend ourselves. No way I'm keeping myself unarmed, when the Zionist agents or criminals could invade my home at any moment.

[!King_Amazon!]

Do you have nightmares about Jews busting into your house and killing you in your sleep? You sound downright paranoid.

[D3V]

Well, now we have kids teacher's in Texas yielding guns in a few schools, I don't have an actual link to a story, but I remember hearing it on the news. It's only a matter of time before teachers are allowed to have them on all campuses, as well as on college campuses. And hell, if everyone can use the same flawed logic to get it to that point, every kid/student/teacher/faculty member should just be able to bring a gun wherever they want. (Fuck the United States, fucking dumb arrogant, ignorant peice of shit rednecks)

[xSerenity Diedx]

Well, now we have kids teacher's in Texas yielding guns in a few schools, I don't have an actual link to a story, but I remember hearing it on the news. It's only a matter of time before teachers are allowed to have them on all campuses, as well as on college campuses. And hell, if everyone can use the same flawed logic to get it to that point, every kid/student/teacher/faculty member should just be able to bring a gun wherever they want. (Fuck the United States, fucking dumb arrogant, ignorant peice of shit rednecks)
ok then you know what lets go in to complete and total anarchy while were at it.....by the way I like your avatar

[Kazilla]

Well, now we have kids teacher's in Texas yielding guns in a few schools, I don't have an actual link to a story, but I remember hearing it on the news. It's only a matter of time before teachers are allowed to have them on all campuses, as well as on college campuses. And hell, if everyone can use the same flawed logic to get it to that point, every kid/student/teacher/faculty member should just be able to bring a gun wherever they want. (Fuck the United States, fucking dumb arrogant, ignorant peice of shit rednecks)
/agree

i do also remember hearing about the gun-totting teachers. A teacher in order to be effective with it, will need to keep it somewhere extremely easy to get to. If they lock it up, what good would it do them in the time of need? Also, I dont know if they researched this or not but, do they have any idea the amount of possessions stolen at school? Its ridiculous.

[D3V]

ok then you know what lets go in to complete and total anarchy while were at it.....by the way I like your avatar

It's a scary world we live in. Our country is so ignorant.

[D3V]

After getting into another debate at work about this I feel the need to re-bump this thread for like the 10th time.

The argument basically comes down to defense of yourself.

Now, I personally know two people that both have guns to their name, and neither situation were either of them able to pull their weapon and 'defend' themselves.

One time was a house robbery where 3 masked burgulars stormed this individuals house and pointed their guns at this person while this person could not do anything in time to react, and even more so she said that she would not have done anything because she did not want to get shot. So in that situation the gun was utterly useless and did not persuade the situation one tiny bit.

The other time was an attempted car-jacking in a K-mart parking lot a year or so ago and this individual had a pistol placed to their temple and was asked to step out of the car, after being pulled from the vehicle and the robber looked through the car and found nothing, ended up just running off.

Now imagine either situation where the two people I know reaching for their gun, they most likely would have been shot both times and killed. It's a very weak argument I would say to say anyone has the right to own a pistol, and even more-so ridiculous to say the right to automatic weapons/assault rifles is within the second amendment. Maybe we should all step back and review the context of when it was written.