Well if you want to take a historical perspective people have guns to trump swords, and the US wouldn't have won its freedom without guns. So thats probably why.
does this have relevence to anything
Well if you want to take a historical perspective people have guns to trump swords, and the US wouldn't have won its freedom without guns. So thats probably why.
does this have relevence to anything
@Bad-Beat:
Do you not hear yourself when you come out with stuff like that?
Ever consider you're the one who isn't listening?
You may not like, nor agree with what he is saying, but his logic is not flawed.
It has relevance to something, just something far, far away from what we were talking about.
Ever consider you're the one who isn't listening?
You may not like, nor agree with what he is saying, but his logic is not flawed.
Yeah, except that with eased gun restrictions using guns to defend yourself from the littler things or threaten someone will be more commonplace.
Now, I know it won't completely eradicate the problem, which is mainly the environmental conditions of one's society that allow someone to fall into depression and lead to drastic movements, but that would be the problem to aim for, not giving everyone guns.
@Bad-Beat:
Why should you keep having to come up with different solutions just to be able to live in a country of guns?
It's like if you were walking down the street and there was a huge tree right in the way.
'That tree is in the way but no worries, I'll just walk around it'
Every time you walk down that street there is a huge tree that you always have to walk around, there is no need for the tree, it is just causing an obstruction for the people trying to walk along. Occassionally an apple falls from that tree and hits someone on the head.
'Oh, that's what trees do, it was unavoidable because that's where the tree is'.
Instead why don't you just chop down the tree so people don't have to keep walking around it and fear an apple is going to fall on them?
Hello? Why don't you just take another damn street/path home, and don't tell me you live at the end of an alleyway and you MUST pass that tree
Again, you cover up the problem, you DO NOT SOLVE IT
Edit: Let me be a little clearer: It's like a bit Bill Cosby did in the 80's, "Oh, if the Black's are the problem, let's get rid of them, no let's not kill them let's just put them on a little island, and the Irish, and the asians etc etc etc"
"Oh let's get rid of guns, let's get rid of knives, lets get rid of fists and eyes so we can't stare at people and offend them and our tongues so we can't verbally abuse people etc etc etc"
Ever consider you're the one who isn't listening?
You may not like, nor agree with what he is saying, but his logic is not flawed.
So you are saying that everyone should carry around a gun, so if something like this does happen again, you can just start firing away?
Yup, that is what he is saying and I dont disagree with it either.
Look at Texas, most people there carry guns on them and how often do people get shot there?
No guns might theoretically make the world a better place, but we're not angels. Even if every gun and the knowledge of how to make them was destroyed, someone would make something else. to use. You might as well wish for world peace.
Yup, that is what he is saying and I dont disagree with it either.
Look at Texas, most people there carry guns on them and how often do people get shot there?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
Let's ignore the problem more
And if you want to generalize a problem as extreme as homicide rate in the state of Texas based on "how many guns people have" then yes let's make police not have guns as well, because there are statistics showing police with guns are more likely to have that same gun turned against them.
However to do this we ignore other factors such as the correlation between capital punishment and homicide, and demographics of the homicide attackers. But sure, let's blame inanimate objects instead.
Look at Texas, most people there carry guns on them and how often do people get shot there?
DEATHS
2004: 884
2003: 894
2002: 798
Look at Refi's post.
Guns are not the problem and that is relative very low compared to how many people are in texas and other states.
no but thats because everyone would be on equal footing
it'd be the same as could you kill 32 people if all 32 of them had a gun on them.
Are you kidding me? Seriously, tell me that this was an attempt at humor. Just because some loner student snapped doesn't justify every man, woman, and child getting a .22. That's completely and totally irrational.
Why not? Why should only the crazy people and criminals have guns?
Crazy people and criminals aren't the only ones packing heat. That's along the lines of saying "Why do only habitually drunk and reckless people drive cars?"
-=-=-=-=-=-
I think the saddest part is that thirty someodd people have died and a university devestated, but nothing significant in the forms of much needed GC laws and serious (not in a Katie Couric puff-piece sort) soul-searching, internal investigations about what in our culture perpetuates these acts of violence will happen in the following weeks and months to come. Simply tragic.
Guns are not the problem and that is relative very low compared to how many people are in texas and other states.
oh so 900 people die each year but that's ok because it's a big state.
so you are basically calling for the deaths of all the people that have a chance to go on a violent killing spree. (that was to the tree post)
guns can't fire themselves.
Are you kidding me? Seriously, tell me that this was an attempt at humor. Just because some loner student snapped doesn't justify every man, woman, and child getting a .22. That's completely and totally irrational.
thats not the reason why I'm stating it (without or without that kid doing what he did I'd support every adult that didn't have a criminal record owning a gun (just because they own one doesn't mean they have to carry it or use it), and I don't think I said anything about giving them to children.
and why is it irrational, is everyones morality about killing so flimsy that just given a gun will break that last wall and we'll have a shoot-out on every street corner, now whose being irrational.
oh and taboo that history bit was about Bad-Beat asking why we have guns.
@Bad-Beat:
DEATHS
2004: 8842003: 894
2002: 798
Thats a very broad statement. Seeing as how people die in more ways then one, but I guess a number (a large number) of that was contributed to guns.
I'm neutral on the subject of outlawing guns or not.
@dlo62282:
Look at Texas, most people there carry guns on them and how often do people get shot there?
That's a dumb assumption. That's like saying 50+% of all citizens in Alabama are trailer-residing incest-loving rednecks.
CNN reports that this kid stalked a couple of girls. Out of the few times he ever spoke, he usually talked about these women.
guns can't fire themselves.
Oh really? Why didn't you say so!?
Well look at me, here I was thinking that guns just went around and fired themselves, a right fool I must look. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I must now go back and delete all my posts because you have just brought to my attention that guns don't fire themselves.
Cochise: That is the amount of people that were killed by guns in Texas those years.
Not a dumb assumption. I am proving that more guns doesnt equal more killings…..What I said, supported that. How is that dumb?
I was reffering to you saying that most people in Texas carry guns.
you do know that more people die from stab wounds that gunshot wounds each year correct?
Cochise: That is the amount of people that were killed by guns in Texas those years.
Texas Firearm Laws1
No licensing or registration requirements for purchase or possession of any firearm.
"Instant" background check with no mandatory waiting period for purchase of handguns, shotguns, or rifles.
Liberal "shall-issue" concealed handgun licensing system under which the Texas Department of Public Safety must issue a concealed carry license to any individual over the age of 21 who has no felony or specific misdemeanor convictions, is not "chemically dependent," is not "of unsound mind," and is not otherwise disqualified. It is unlawful for a concealed carry license holder to carry a handgun into "a place of worship" if the license holder has verbal or written notice of the prohibition, e.g. the church must post a sign that handguns are not allowed.
Texas has a "child access prevention" (CAP) law which makes it a crime to allow a juvenile under the age of 17 to gain access to a loaded firearm because the firearm was not secured or was in a place where the person knew or should have known that the juvenile would gain access.
Firearm-Related Death in Texas
In 1996 Texas ranked 22nd in rate of firearm-related death, with a rate of 13.64 per 100,000. In 1996 the national rate of firearm-related death was 12.94 per 100,000.2
In 1996 Texas ranked 18th in rate of firearm-related homicide, with a rate of 5.83 per 100,000. In 1996 the national rate of firearm-related homicide was 6.02 per 100,000. 3
In 1996 Texas ranked 29th in rate of firearm-related suicide, with a rate of 7.18 per 100,000. In 1996 the national rate of firearm-related suicide was 6.29 per 100,000.4
you do know that more people die from stab wounds that gunshot wounds each year correct?
I guess we should ban knifes too.
That is worse I will admit, but why bring it up in this thread? I just don't understand why you decided to post something because it was worse than this. It's like saying "Don't be sad about this. He happy. And here's the reason why."
you do know that more people die from stab wounds that gunshot wounds each year correct?
You do know that isn't true?
You cannot create a utopia, most people do not have a Kantian utilitarian POV on life.
If you make stricter gun control laws, illegal gun trade will increase, and likely police will be forced to face AK47's with PM40's because a "logical senator" would argue "Since civilians have no guns, why do police need such deadly force?" the VERY NEXT TIME a psychotic cop shoots a minority 50 times (and you know this will happen again and again, because it is tied into the problem).
At the end of the day, there was a crime from 9am to 7pm where police stood outside and did nothing, students survived by pretending to be dead by laying in pools of blood and A STUDENT locked up an entire dormitory which apparently had a single exit(wtf??).
Had those other students had guns, all I'm saying is things would not have ended the same way, in fact if that teacher who survived the holocaust and helped students escape had been a trained gun wielding civilian, due to experience could have instead stopped the student before he got too far. ANY responsible civilian/student/teacher could have, and they didn't because guns are taboo, and our society sees them as something we should not be educated on, nor wield. Unless we are republicans/criminals (should I really separate the two?)
@Pass:
That is worse I will admit, but why bring it up in this thread? I just don't understand why you decided to post something because it was worse than this. It's like saying "Don't be sad about this. He happy. And here's the reason why."
Because it's relevant to the topic of discussion.
agreed (this was to Refi's post)
if you want to remove guns because of the lives they take away
then
remember the lives they have saved / could have saved.
Because it's relevant to the topic of discussion.
I still don't see why, but rather than start a pointless argument, I'll take your word for it and end it with this.
At the end of the day, there was a crime from 9am to 7pm where police stood outside and did nothing, students survived by pretending to be dead by laying in pools of blood and A STUDENT locked up an entire dormitory which apparently had a single exit(wtf??).
umm what?
The police got there pretty quickly, the whole thing lasted at the most 10 mins. (the second shooting)
@Pass:
I still don't see why, but rather than start a pointless argument, I'll take your word for it and end it with this.
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with my posts in this thread.
umm what?
The police got there pretty quickly, the whole thing lasted at the most 10 mins. (the second shooting)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting
Wielding two pistols, the gunman opened fire about 7:15 a.m…. Trey Perkins, who was sitting in a German class in Norris Hall, told The Washington Post that the gunman barged into the room at about 9:50 a.m.
Sorry, 9AM I'm sorry I'm tired, it was still ridiculous. The school sent an e-mail telling students to continue going to their classrooms and act as if everything was normal. I don't know exactly how long it lasted, but based on the video police just stood there while you could hear constant gunfire in the background. Where was the swat? Where were the snipers? Why are they ONLY present when a kid is about to give himself up, or when the kid released ALL the hostages and they kill him?
Yeah, I don't understand is why the school wasn't immediately evacuated after the first shooting. You don't not take precautions because you "thought the situation was under control." I know Virginia Tech's campus is a large one, but it seems like it would have made sense to evacuate once you knew there was someone with a gun on campus.
From everything I've read and heard, the situation was handled disastrously.
So taboo, do you propose that everyone carry bombs on them to protect them from bad guys with bombs?
Hindsight is 20/20/. They thought the first shooting was domestic and isolated thing. I dont really fault them for that.
@Cap'n:
So taboo, do you propose that everyone carry bombs on them to protect them from bad guys with bombs?
so um hey did i ever say that
I'm just saying that taking away every single gun in the world won't solve the problem. It'll still be there, and people will still retain the desire to kill.
so um hey did i ever say that
I'm just saying that taking away every single gun in the world won't solve the problem. It'll still be there, and people will still retain the desire to kill.
Yeah sorry I'm lumping these arguments together, it's been a long day.
Guns aren't the source of the problem of course, but I think a restriction will help reduce a bit of the problem.
Personally the notion that I have to carry a weapon because some crazy jackoff on the street might have one kind of pisses me off.
Apparently you haven't been keeping up with my posts in this thread.
Actually, I have.
It's a similar story, but that's all it has in connection to this. And yes, it explains that there are ways to create even worse mass murders with weapons other than guns, but I don't think that supports a belief on the issue of outlawing guns.
It's a similar story, but that's all it has in connection to this. And yes, it explains that there are ways to create even worse mass murders with weapons other than guns
Bum bum bum, we have winner! :p
Guns aren't the source of the problem of course, but I think a restriction will help reduce a bit of the problem.
Of course, that'd definentally help. Like, if the shooter had a gun that he'd have to continually reload or even … gah what's the word... pull back the little lever thing on those older pistols... he'd would have had a much harder time causing as much damage as he did.
Once you reduce a weapon to a tool, you no longer fear it. Do you fear a saw? No, can it any less kill you? No. (And I have been barely TOUCHED by one and nearly half my flesh on my arm was taken off by another student in high school),
We shouldn't all carry bombs, because that is de-constructive, if one went off they would all go off, whereas one going off would isolate the incident.
Honestly do you guys see people killing each other in Deli's with the butcher knives, or people in restaurants turning into bat-shit psychos with the steak knives? Why can't you put 2 + 2 together and place guns in the same category of knives/wrenches/etc by changing the way society views them? Like other countries have done.
Bum bum bum, we have winner! :p
But how does a different method that provides worser results account to your belief?
We will always have violence and murder. Always. We have cops and bannishment on weapons to decrease the amount of death and violence, not to eliminate it completely. So to say that outlawing guns is pointless because they won't end death or because they aren't the leading cause of death doesn't many any sense.
But on topic, I'm not saying that guns should be outlawed nor shouldn't be outlawed. We have a right to bear arms but our right to do so can lead to horrible ends. IMO, it's a lose-lose situation whether we ban them or not.
Um guys. If you remove guns, murderers will start using knives. If you remove knives, murderers will start using forks, if you outlaw forks they'll start using sporks.
Hopefully you see my point.
That is to say, save the sporks.
Um guys. If you remove guns, murderers will start using knives. If you remove knives, murderers will start using forks, if you outlaw forks they'll start using sporks.
Hopefully you see my point.
That is to say, save the sporks.
way to jump in like 5 pages too late
@Pass:
But how does a different method that provides worser results account to your belief?
:wassat: Have you really been keeping up with what I'm saying? I think you are confused.
:wassat: Have you really been keeping up with what I'm saying? I think you are confused.
Surprised?
@Cap'n:
From everything I've read and heard, the situation was handled disastrously.
True.
No notion was sent for 2 hours after the first shooting, and it was an e-mail.
You guys should check out his plays he wrote.
Lets put it this way.
We did not lose a man with a creative future.
No guns.
That way, people would start having knife fights which are good exercise.
You guys should check out his plays he wrote.
Lets put it this way.
We did not lose a man with a creative future.
I hear ya, man. I read that Richard McBeef story, and holy cow!
When I heard about it on the news, it sounded like the story of an abusive father and his tormented son. Then I read it, and boy was I surprised. I got this feeling that the father represents the playwrighter, not the child.
So all these pages just support my theory that US will always be the Wild West.
Blah, too many replies. But, Greg, so this dude would had killed over 30 persons with a fork too? Interesting… quite frankly I still find the whole "guns don't kill" to be extremely silly (read from left to right):
!
@Mog:
Well, I'm inclined to agree. But then, I live in a country where there being no guns is pretty much the norm. I've never even seen a real one my entire life. The US is so drastically different that it's hard to compare norms and values, or the effectiveness of laws, I think.
I have never seen a real gun either. And I'm not planning to. However, yeah, this kind of things are always hard. Yet from my not so North American point of view this whole thing is very absurd and shouldn't be even possible.
But why not sell bazookas too? I bet those would be even more effecting for "protecting freedom" . Firearms are for girls. And now that we are in the topic, does anybody know where to buy mustard gas?