Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

At least 18 children and 9 others dead in Connecticut school shooting. Does this change your mind ab Options · View
principessa
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:37:18 AM

Rank: Sophisticate
Moderator

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,934
Location: Canada
There was apparently a spike in gun sales over the weekend, just in case there is regulation in the future. Many of these guns are purchased at gun shows, where no background checks are done. Surely even those of you who do not want regulation would agree that this loophole should be closed.

Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:38:04 AM

Rank: Wise Ass
Moderator

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,680
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
Just a question here, don't get me wrong there are some very valid points in this thread but are we now not...



The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

ByronLord
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:39:11 AM

Rank: Forum Guru
Moderator

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 855
Location: Massachusetts, United States
LadyX wrote:
I was out of town (and still am) when I heard the news. There's been criticism here in the tank about jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle with opinions, etc. I think the discussion is healthy for the most part. I was shaking my head when I saw an NRA spokesperson on TV, already playing zone defense politics an hour after the fact, perhaps even as a few clung to their last breaths. Maybe some would say that people here are guilty of the same reactionary speech, from either side, but we're just goofballs on the internet. We don't shape policy or disseminate information professionally.


I do.

LadyX wrote:

I also think the gun-nut label gets thrown out their too quickly at times, myself included, but I wonder if some of you know how you sound when this stuff gets discussed. Any discussion of gun control as a general subject immediately conjures creepy diatribes about government goons in "jack boots" (learned a new term, at least), and comparisons between guns and cars, leading to breathless "well should we just ban cars too??" rhetoric, and then the stat wars get launched, where two sides lob opposing sets of 'facts' at each other. I'm at the point now, that when numbers get posted, I check out completely. Big numbers designed to sway arguments do me, and us, no good. Garbage in, garbage out.


The problem that led to the Newtown massacre is not the guns or the gun owners or even the gun owners with guns. It is the gun nuts with guns. And when they start spouting off about black helicopters and government jackbooted thugs it is time to point out that they are complete whack jobs and that their views are completely crazy and fact-free.

Not everyone who owns a gun is a gun nut. But it is the gun nuts who are the problem here. Having a gun in the house is far more likely to result in you or a member of your family being killed with a gun than not having a gun. But people don't react rationally to risks, that is a well known fact.

But there is illogic and there is gun-wankery. And when people are buying more automatic weapons than the Baader Meinhof gang had guns that is gun-wankery. It has nothing to do with recreation or hunting and everything to do with compensating for having a dick thats three sizes too small.

I think that the debate is actually going to converge on the following understanding:

1) Accepting restrictions on gun ownership is not the start of a slippery slope to a complete ban, it is the only way that a complete ban can be avoided. If the NRA keeps resisting every gun control measure out of hand they are going to push gun control advocates to the point where the only way gun control is going to happen is when the massacres become so common that gun control is irresistible and then there will be no need to moderate our demands.

2) The gun nut culture has to end. Military styled weapons have no place in hunting animals, the only purpose is to hunt people. Nobody uses an UZI or an AK47 in self defense.

3) The assault weapons ban will be reinstated

4) The gun show loophole will be closed

5) There will be a national system of gun registration

These measures are not going to happen overnight but they are going to become the consensus position very quickly. The debate proposition has flipped completely.

In any political debate you have certain positions that are considered to be essential. Until recently it was considered unthinkable that there would be any measure that might conceivably threaten the 'right' of people to own weapons for hunting. Right now the unthinkable position is that these massacres in our schools will continue and more kids are going to be killed.


principessa
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:42:58 AM

Rank: Sophisticate
Moderator

Joined: 8/23/2011
Posts: 4,934
Location: Canada
Dudealicious wrote:
Just a question here, don't get me wrong there are some very valid points in this thread but are we now not...



Dude, with respect, this is an important enough topic for there to be a full discussion. The event that opened the discussion deserves our attention.

lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:56:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,694
Location: Alabama, United States
I understand the need to focus on guns, I really do. But the deeper issue needs to be WHY are these guys doing this. Ok, this guy used a semi-automatic "assault" rifle. So fucking what. Would we feel better or safer if he'd used multiple handguns with 10 round clips? Or a wide spray shotgun? Ok, maybe the Bushmaster allowed him to kill more people more quickly, maybe. Would it really have mattered in a small room with a bunch of kids sitting like lame ducks with no escape and he used couple standard issue Glock 9mm? That would have been just as deadly. Or a shotgun with 8-12 shells. The style of weapon is irrelevant to me. Ban "assault rifles" if you think that will help, but it's not like there isn't a plethora of other multi-round guns that are equally as deadly. Especially at close range when used in a crowd.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Dudealicious
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:04:56 AM

Rank: Wise Ass
Moderator

Joined: 11/12/2010
Posts: 5,680
Location: The center of the universe, Canada
principessa wrote:


Dude, with respect, this is an important enough topic for there to be a full discussion. The event that opened the discussion deserves our attention.


While I agree of the fact that this is an important enough topic for a full discussion. What I do not agree with is the absurd comparisons that are being used to compare death and guns to. If I read about cars killing more people than guns one more time, I will end up pulling all of my hair out.

Is this a problem? Fuck yes it is! There is absolutely no reason as to why a weapon like this should be sold to civilians period.



Reuters wrote:
Some facts about Bushmaster AR-15 assault weapons:

* An automatic version of the weapon is used by U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and some police forces in the United States. The M-16 is the rifle version of the military weapon, and the M-4 is the carbine, a weapon with a shorter barrel
* The weapon is highly modular, meaning a user can change the barrel, the stock, the magazine and other features, easily changing a weapon's characteristics such as weight, capacity, range and accuracy.
* Capacity: 30 rounds in a standard military magazine.
* Suggested retail price of the Bushmaster .223 caliber M4 carbine: $1,197 to $1,391.
* National retailers selling assault weapons include: Wal-Mart Stores Inc, where it is for sale in a small percentage of stores; Dick's Sporting Goods Inc, and Cabela's Inc.
* Connecticut law: The state requires rifles and shotguns to be registered but requires no permit to purchase them, according to the National Rifle Association's Institute of Legislative Action.


There are some fundamental flaws when you consider how easy it is to arm oneself with a weapon like this....isn't there?

The night that changed my life, a four part series of a married man lusting after his co-worker

tazznjazz
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:45:41 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
When an event like this occurs passions run high and fingers get pointed, but I think everyone agrees this was a senseless tragedy and instead of defending this or that position, gun sportsmen should lead the way in solving these issues before this kind of thing happens again by coming up with reasonable curbs and limits to assault weapons, because if a horrible incident like this is repeated they run a high risk of losing any and all firearm freedoms.

Should the parents against gun violence band together and become a dues paying lobby group they will be such a powerful voice that they'd make the NRA seem like a local bowling league.
LadyX
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 10:51:44 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,771
lafayettemister wrote:
I understand the need to focus on guns, I really do. But the deeper issue needs to be WHY are these guys doing this.


I don't think there are any simple answers. Proliferation of guns aren't the entire problem. If they were, Canada would have a similar gun-related fatalities per capita number to the US. But we're in willful group denial if we don't accept that gun violence would be less prevalent if less guns were available.

We're a fearful, violent, culture. Movies, and media, and video games aren't to blame for anything, but there's no denying that their cumulative effect on society is a numbing, detached, desensitized attitude toward violence.

This clip comes to mind, from a movie that many dismiss out of hand for the propaganda that it is. But nevertheless, the interview in this clip is on topic and very intelligent. I believe every word he says here.



Fear. Consumption. Numbness. Neglect. Aside from the proliferation and widespread availability of deadly weapons, I'd say those four headings contain the DNA for our murderous monster of a culture.
DavidTheDeer
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:06:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 923
Location: Pierre, United States
In all honesty all states should require background checks, the only reason why I can imagine some don't is possibly because of the possibility of discrimination? The state I live in has had that as a requirement since god knows when, and no one is bitching about it; losing gun rights if you do a crime is pretty much just a known conscience of doing the crime in the first place. States that don't do background checks are just asking for it.

And I most people are against the assault rifle ban not because they are worried about losing assault rifles, more of "What guns will get banned after the assault rifles." And possibly people that already own them might be a little pissed about said ban, because you know if the government was left to the task of collecting them they wouldn’t pay back a 10th of what the original owner paid.

As for this most recent shooting, the mother was irresponsible and didn't have her guns properly locked up. Hell, I keep the ammo for my gun in the car and my gun under my bed; then again, I only go shooting for sport and to hang out with friends, I’m not too concerned on the home defense side of things.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:08:17 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,694
Location: Alabama, United States
Marilyn Manson says that music was his escape, "a record won't yell at you for the way you dress". Who or what was he trying to escape... his classmates in school? All it takes is 1 out of every million school kids to need an escape and instead of music they turn to violence.

I think it's disingenuous to say that media such as music, movies and video games have no effect on how people act or what they do, then in the next sentence talk about the president "has more influence". Very few people actually get to meet the President, they only learn of and are influenced by him via the media. "This" kind of media.. news media offers a "campaign of fear and consumption"... my music doesn't.

I actually think the media plays a huge part in this. Whether they'll admit it or not, the news media is glorifying these murderers. As long as the killers' names are on the front page of every newspaper and magazine and the lead story on umpteen differtn TV stations.. someone who is anti-social and predispositoned to violence is going to view it wrong and seek out their notoriety. MOst people that listen to Manson's music, just enjoy that kind of music. I have no issue with him. I don't think he's the anti-Christ.

Violence on movies, tv, video games may not be the sole cause of this cycle of violence. I don't think it's absurd to think it's a contributing factor. It's worth investigating. I'd be interested to know how kids with mental/anti-social behavior, view and consume and comprehend video games. Not the "normal" gamer, but people already vulnerable to phychosis?

There's a reason video games and movies have ratings. Because youngsters aren't mentally developed enough to intellectualize what they're seeing. If violence in movies and video games didn't matter at all, didn't have an adverse effect on kids/people... then there'd be no reason for a ratings system?





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:12:21 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,350
This whole thread is preposterous. I wasn't able to watch news, so I don't have info how did family of those children react and how outrageous they are, specially with people who still defend your obsolete law.

I am not sure if you (the ones who defend 2 amendment) are not realising that not only USA has problem with mental desease, all countries do, but problem with USA is that mentally ill people can get semi automatic gun in their hands and go crazy with it. angry7

I shake my head in disbelief and think to myself, that maybe with that attitude you really need and 'deserve' your 2 amendment.
DanielleX
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:16:47 AM

Rank: Blonde Bombshell
Moderator

Joined: 11/6/2011
Posts: 4,289
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
I admit, I haven't read every post on this thread, so I apologise in advance if this opinion has already been aired.

This right to bear arms thing that people are talking about is a bit irrelevant now isn't it? Apparently this dates back to 1791. I can sort of see that in the days of the Wild West it was probably understandable that any Tom Dick or Harry wanted to defend themselves. I'm no historian, but I'm guessing only soldiers and the top nobility from England had guns and somebody said that's not fair.

Barak Obama has come out with all these platitudes but nothing will change. Then it will happen again and again! People in America who want to keep this law need to have a serious word with themselves! I can't imagine any of my family either here or in Europe would even contemplate wanting a gun!

I've tried to hold it in, but softy that I am, I saw all the photos of the little kids on the TV last night after SPOTTY and just burst into tears :(

Danielle


Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:18:16 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
I know I'm late to this discussion, but after I heard the story on the news, I went to my kids, held them close, and spent most of the week being grateful for what I have. This site was the last thing on my mind. But, I want to at least share my opinion.

Before I do though, I want to clarify something.

There is no "gun show loophole". If you buy a gun from a dealer, which make up the vast majority of booths at a gun show, you are still required to fill out a 4473 form, and go through the background check. The only way to not go through the background check at the point of sale when buying from a dealer is to have a concealed weapons permit, which you cannot get without a background check. Any dealer who sells a gun without obtaining and verifying a 4473 will lose their federal firearms license and be facing serious charges.

Anyway, the day after the shooting, my dad lashed out on Facebook, saying that "gun toting conservatives" were responsible for this horrible tragedy, and that it was their fault that we were "a nation of savages." This was my response.



As a "gun toting conservative", I guess I'm being roped into this one.

Truth be told, I personally refused to say anything in the wake of this tragedy, and planned to defriend anybody yesterday who mentioned either side of the issue. We as a nation need to come together under a banner of unity and solidarity, and this endless back and forth vitriol is usless and just.. tiring.

But, you asked, so here goes.

First things first. When talking about this, I refuse to refer to the shooter as a "man". He is not a man. Men have rules of engagement. We "fight someone our own size". This person (even that is stretching it) is a coward. Cowards look for opportunity. They look for somebody who is weaker and defenseless. Cowards are the type of individuals who do horrible shit like this.

This was a school. Schools are one of the very few places where possession of a firearm is 100% banned. You cannot legally carry a firearm into a zone 1000ft surrounding a school. You cannot carry on the sidewalk across the street from a school. You cannot have a gun in your home if you live within that zone. It is the epitome of what people who are against firearms would like the entire US/world to be.

But, this hasn't made them safer, it has made them targets in tragedies like this. I am unable to recall any recent shooting event that was not in a "gun free zone", with the exception of the Tucson shooting. Why? Because these perpetrators are cowards. They know the people inside will be defenseless. Nobody will be able to fight back. The cowards will have complete control and power.

A murderous coward like this isn't going to get his gear together, get himself psyched up, drive to his target, but see the "No Guns Allowed" sign and think "Oh, shucks, well, nevermind I guess." For somebody cowardly and deranged enough to do something like this, a charge of misconduct with a weapon is not an issue. All these gun free zones do is make sure that the law abiding responsible gun owners disarm themselves, and render them unable to protect themselves and their loved ones.

And that brings me to my second point. Last night, I was in tears, crying as I brushed my daughters hair, and helped her brush her teeth. I even took a picture of me brushing her hair, because I never want to forget this one fact: I am a lucky, lucky man.

Last night, the parents of 20 kids were not able to do that. The parents of 20 kids were not able to kiss their children good night. The parents of 20 kids were not able to wake up in the middle of the night, go to their kids rooms, and watch them sleep, just to make sure they were OK.

Forget the 2nd amendment as a stopcheck against a tyrannical government. Forget the 2nd amendment as a protection for hunters. THIS is why I carry.

In my job, I get threatened by these cowards on a regular basis. Myself, and my kids. 8 year ago, my responsibilities changed. My one and only job in this world is to provide for, and protect my kids. Anything and everything else is secondary to that one purpose.

I do not carry a gun because I want to kill somebody. I pray every day, to what's left of the God I believe in, that I never have to. But if one of these cowards threatens my children, I will protect them, by any means necessary. If the coward forces it to escalate to a situation where one of the two of us die in the process, so be it. But I have no intention of it being me, and I train and will do everything in my power to make sure it isn't.

If guns are banned, I'll buy a bigger knife. If knives are banned, I'll be in the front yard gathering rocks. If rocks are banned, I'll be on my patio, sharpening sticks. Since time immemorial, cowards have looked for ways to gain an advantage over others. And as long as I have my children, I will do everything in my power to protect my kids from these cowards, and make sure they can grow up to be anything they want to be. Because yesterday, some coward stopped 20 kids from reaching their potential. 20 kids were taken from this world, before they had a chance to even live. And I will die before I allow that to happen to my kids.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.
DavidTheDeer
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:20:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 923
Location: Pierre, United States
She wrote:
This whole thread is preposterous. I wasn't able to watch news, so I don't have info how did family of those children react and how outrageous they are, specially with people who still defend your obsolete law.

I am not sure if you (the ones who defend 2 amendment) are not realising that not only USA has problem with mental desease, all countries do, but problem with USA is that mentally ill people can get semi automatic gun in their hands and go crazy with it. angry7

I shake my head in disbelief and think to myself, that maybe with that attitude you really need and 'deserve' your 2 amendment.

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009), maybe we should get rid of the 21st Amendment as well; after all, that’s another hobbies people do for nothing more than enjoyment.

Would you be willing to agree with this statement, or are you one of the people that drink and thus are against it?
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:28:34 AM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
foxjack wrote:

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009)


According to the CDC, second hand smoke kills 4 times more people than firearm related homocides.
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 11:35:07 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,350
foxjack wrote:

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009), maybe we should get rid of the 21st Amendment as well; after all, that’s another hobbies people do for nothing more than enjoyment.

Would you be willing to agree with this statement, or are you one of the people that drink and thus are against it?


I don't drink and drive and I love to drink, it is just the way I live, by my standards and my rules when it comes to the point that I can damage my life or any other.

..saying that, I will tell you that you are repeating your self and you don't have good argument there. It's like saying, since I have to take my daily medicine for lymph gland because is out of order, I will use cocaine as well, because my liver is getting damaged anyway.
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:14:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,694
Location: Alabama, United States
foxjack wrote:

Drunk driving deaths exceed gun deaths (at least as of 2009), maybe we should get rid of the 21st Amendment as well; after all, that’s another hobbies people do for nothing more than enjoyment.

Would you be willing to agree with this statement, or are you one of the people that drink and thus are against it?


I think this is a more valid comparison than the gun deaths vs. automobile deaths analogy. It's not the car that's dangerous, it's the misuse of a car that is dangerous. Anyone who willingly gets behind the steering wheel while intoxicated is just as able to kill as someone who misuses a gun. Yes, I realize there's a difference in intention but the result is the same. Death.

2010, there were 10228 fatalities as a result of drunk driving. It is estimated that 1/3 of those accidents were committed by a repeat DUI offender.
2010, there were 9369 homicides committed with a firearm.

It may not be popular here, but it is a valid comparison. If our goal is to end unwarranted death to innocent people, alcohol is just as deadly as firearms, if not more so.



The larger issue is where along the line did we lose so much respect for human life and ourselves? All life is precious, it doesn't matter how it's taken or by what means or weapon. If one of my loved ones died, I'd be equally distraught over it having happened via gun or drunk driver. Either way, there is a PERSON to blame. The individual himself is responsible.

edit.... neither is really the problem.... people are the problem





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:25:18 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 11,198
Location: Cakeland
Can anyone submit a sane justification why our society needs to allow assault style semi-automatic rifles with large capacity clips in the general population?

Or, semi-automatic handguns with large capacity clips?

And I realize fully well, that my 6 shot revolver and 3 shell pump shotgun are semi-automatic weapons too.

Why are ammunition rounds sold to the GP which can shred kevlar vests? Because deer & bear and moose wear those devices?

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:44:38 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,350
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:55:06 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,350
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:07:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,350
WellMadeMale wrote:
Can anyone submit a sane justification why our society needs to allow assault style semi-automatic rifles with large capacity clips in the general population?

Or, semi-automatic handguns with large capacity clips?

And I realize fully well, that my 6 shot revolver and 3 shell pump shotgun are semi-automatic weapons too.

Why are ammunition rounds sold to the GP which can shred kevlar vests? Because deer & bear and moose wear those devices?


I would guess it's because the criminals can and do wear them too?
CleverFox
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:20:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2012
Posts: 484
Location: United States
doctorlove wrote:
We need police in schools just like the banks. Money is insured and can be replaced children can't


That is a really interesting idea DoctorLove. But how are we going to pay for these extra police officers? We don't even pay the teachers what they are worth so were do we get the money for police officers to do nothing but patrol schools all day?

Maybe we could have special security guards that have a minimum of training that are armed with a small side arm and pay them a whole dollar more than minimum wage to patrol the schools? Wouldn't that be great? If a gunman came into the school wearing body armor with a high power semi-automatic assault rifle, why I am sure the guard will put his life on the line and save those children with one well placed shoot right between the gunman's eyes. It would probably be like the old quick-draws you see in the old westerns.

YES! WHAT A GREAT IDEA!

(For those of you that are sarcastically impaired, the second and third paragraphs are sarcasm.)
Guest
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:38:19 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 883,350
lafayettemister wrote:


I think this is a more valid comparison than the gun deaths vs. automobile deaths analogy. It's not the car that's dangerous, it's the misuse of a car that is dangerous. Anyone who willingly gets behind the steering wheel while intoxicated is just as able to kill as someone who misuses a gun. Yes, I realize there's a difference in intention but the result is the same. Death.

2010, there were 10228 fatalities as a result of drunk driving. It is estimated that 1/3 of those accidents were committed by a repeat DUI offender.
2010, there were 9369 homicides committed with a firearm.

It may not be popular here, but it is a valid comparison. If our goal is to end unwarranted death to innocent people, alcohol is just as deadly as firearms, if not more so.



The larger issue is where along the line did we lose so much respect for human life and ourselves? All life is precious, it doesn't matter how it's taken or by what means or weapon. If one of my loved ones died, I'd be equally distraught over it having happened via gun or drunk driver. Either way, there is a PERSON to blame. The individual himself is responsible.

edit.... neither is really the problem.... people are the problem


the difference is in a intend.

rarely drunk people will sit behind the wheels and decide to kill someone else, if you discard hollywood action movies that is. usually they are suicidal, but with firearms, you thought things through, you made a plan, you went into a school and kill children. big difference. and maybe will this sound brutal, but difference is as well how many you can kill before someone will stop you with car or with semi automatic gun.
dvgtsc
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:45:01 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 12
I am not happy with what happened, but I myself am a gun owner. I am a law abiding citizen and I go through the back ground checks. My state has back ground checks for every gun purchase I make. Stricter gun laws will do nothing for the non law abiding citizen. My own school( college) I feel has a silly rule. All faulty and students currently enrolled at my college are not allowed to carry any firearms or weapons on them while on the ground. This includes locked in a car. However this rule only applies to students and faculty. People who are on campus and not a student or faculty and are there for some public event or other form of business, this rule does not apply to them. I have a conceal carry license and my school is located in not the greatest area. I get out of class late at night and with in the past month there have been 3 attempted rapes and 4 assaults not to mention who knows how many robberies. I feel I have a right to protect myself.

Again I do own a gun, but owning a gun comes with great responsibility. I know my laws and what constitutes when I am allowed to discharge my firearm. I do believe in the second amendment and it is my right to bear arms. But because of certain individuals who misuse this right the rest suffer. The college rule placed I feel made the area much more dangerous. The criminals know the college students on my campus have nothing to protect themselves. I feel it makes us a much easier target since all of them know the school policy as well.

My school elementary-high school all had security guards. Maybe it is just in the area I grew up in but I felt safer with them there.I atleast knew if anything went down someone within the judicial power was firing back. The only person who can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I truly feel that way.
sprite
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:00:31 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness
Moderator

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 23,813
Location:
Monkey1282 wrote:


According to the CDC, second hand smoke kills 4 times more people than firearm related homocides.




so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right?




lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:06:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,694
Location: Alabama, United States
She wrote:


the difference is in a intend.

rarely drunk people will sit behind the wheels and decide to kill someone else, if you discard hollywood action movies that is. usually they are suicidal, but with firearms, you thought things through, you made a plan, you went into a school and kill children. big difference. and maybe will this sound brutal, but difference is as well how many you can kill before someone will stop you with car or with semi automatic gun.


I know what you mean. I disagree though, anyone who drinks and chooses to drive is intending to be irresponsible. If my child is killed by a bullet or a drunk driver, I'm not really going to care about his intent. My only care would be my kid.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:20:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,694
Location: Alabama, United States
Here's another part of this whole firearms issue. When we see or hear the term "semi-automatic" gun, and people that want to ban semi-automatic guns.... they're ALL (mostly all) semi-automatic guns to a degree. Sort of, even if they aren't designated that way. A semi-automatic gun is one that doesn't have to be reloaded after it's been fired once. Even old Colt 45s from the old west were technically "semi-automatic. A revolver holds six bullets, hence the term "six shooter", and it allows the shooter to pop off 6 shots before having to reload. These days, most shotguns hold more than two shells and they can be fired one after another. Although some of these require the shooter to "pump" it, which takes about 1 second so in essence, it's nearly semi-automatic. All handguns are semi-automatic (except for small derringer type guns that hold only one or two shots). A revolver with six shots, or one that has a clip holding up to ten bullets can fire multiple rounds before needing to be reloaded. Most rifles, including hunting rifles, will hold multiple rounds of bullets. All capable of being shot without needing to be reloaded after one shot fired.

The difference between "automatic" and "semi-automatic" is this. With an automatic gun, you pull and hold the trigger and it will continue to fire until you let go of the trigger or you run out of ammunition.

A semi automatic requires the shooter to pull the trigger, release, and pull the trigger again. Less than half a second.

The problem the "gun nuts" are going to have is the proverbial "slippery slope". If semi-automatic rifles are banned, what will come next? That would be a scary precedent in the eyes of the NRA and the Second Amendment. It's an easy leap in logic and legalese to then seek bans on semi-automatic guns altogether. For the true gun enthusiest or person concerned with protecting his home, having a gun capable of only one shot would be useless.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
DavidTheDeer
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:11:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 923
Location: Pierre, United States
sprite wrote:




so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right?


I think his point is that it’s okay to own a gun as long as others continue their own equally deadly hobbies. Especially when good things can come from guns, the only good thing you get from cigarettes and alcohol is good feelings.
Jack_42
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:53:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/21/2009
Posts: 1,324
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Monkey1282
Posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:56:29 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 11/9/2012
Posts: 12
sprite wrote:


so, by your logic, it's ok to gun down children as long as we don't exceed the amount killed by second hand smoke, right?



Not at all. Actually, I never even mentioned kids in that post. Read my post before that one to see how I feel about this... individual... who shot those children. The reason I posted that statement was simply a response to Foxjack's post about drunk driving, and was adding another bit of information to his statement.

But, if you want me to make a logic argument out of my statement, then let me ask this. If alcohol, smoking, drug abuse, and accidental poisonings (among others) are each responsible for more avoidable deaths than firearms, why are firearms the target? If you're looking to save lives, shouldn't you logically start at the deadliest "unnecessary" right and work your way down the list? What percentage of the people who are against guns have never fired a gun in their life, and are acting more out of a fear based on lack of knowledge, fear inducing media buzzwords (assault weapon, sniper rifle, automatic rifle, etc), or our Attorney General's "brainwashing" (his word, not mine)?

If illicit drugs are illegal, drunk driving is illegal, and alcohol used to be illegal, but nothing changed, why will making guns illegal be the one prohibition that works?

Why aren't smoking and civilian availability of poisons targeted? Both of them are good for only one thing: killing. There is a difference in intent, and She is right about that. But I own guns, I use them responsibly, and I have no "intent" to kill anybody. So the argument is being based on the "intent" of the criminals, not of the law abiding citizens, which doesn't seem fair, regardless of what the topic is.

I've read so much over the past few days that I can't remember where I read it, so if this point is regurgitating something that someone else on here said, I apologize, but it is a good point:

Using 2009's numbers, roughly 30,000 people were killed with guns. FBI stats say that approximately 3/4 of those involve legally owned firearms, so about 22,750. Banning guns would probably only save a fraction of that; a murderer uses a gun because it's easier, and if there's no guns, they'll use the next best thing.

Obviously, you and others think that if banning firearms could save a fraction of that 22,750, then it's worth it. Let me ask you this though, which other rights would you be willing to give up to save that fraction?

Would you be willing to give up your Fourth Amendment rights, and allow the government or it's entities to take you, your family, or your possessions with no justification?

Would you be willing to give up your Fifth Amendment rights, and be locked away, or even executed without due process?

Would you give up your Sixth Amendment rights, and be held for an indeterminable amount of time, in secret, without a lawyer?

What about the First Amendment? Would you give that up to save a fraction of 22,750? Would you allow yourself to lose the freedom to voice your thoughts, worship as you please, gather together with your friends peaceably?

If you would, I would be very interested to hear your viewpoint on things. Also, you may be interested in North Korea. I hear they have unicorns! ()

But if you wouldn't, why is the Second Amendment allowed? Right after the Founding Fathers enumerated the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, the next most important right they wanted to protect was the right to bear arms. And honestly, if the Second Amendment were about protecting the rights of hunters and recreational shooters, then the Bill of Rights would be full of references to other things they enjoyed in their free time, like pies and prostitutes.

Ugh. I hate working with numbers like that, because it tends to trivialize the deaths. These were 30,000 people, each year, who lost their lives. 30,000 sons, daughters, fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters, who their families will never get back. Obviously, something needs to be done, I just don't think gun control is the answer.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.