Oh no doubt hunting and protection of nation are low on the radar screen for why we need guns still....but you never know what's going to happen. I'm not a survivalist by any means, but it's nice to know that I'm not dependent on anyone or any entity to be able to provide for my family.
I respect all you antigunners out there and I will always do everything I can to help protect my fellow citizens, even after I'm retired from law enforcement and walking around the golf course in plaid pants and smoking a cigar.
My wife chastised me for being one of the ones who threadjacked this into a gun vs. no gun debate. She's right, of course. The real weapon is between that sh!thead's ears.
My prayers go out to all the victims, their families and those affected by this mass murder. (It's not a tragedy, you godless media whores--it's a mass murder, not a plane crash!!!)
|
couple of points:
sweden/switzerland have a culture of stubborn pacifism, backed up with a large amount of qualified citizens w/ high-powered weapons. i wonder why people don't pursue violent crimes there?
in every one of these school-type shootings (from columbine and onwards) (hell, even from Kent State and on), the victims were unarmed and contained due to the conditions around them. may as well have delivered them to the slaughter.
crazy is crazy. this nut-job should not have gotten weapons legally under VA law...what with his 2005 psych eval and history of neuropsychopharmacological use. (i love that word). but, he did.
if he hadn't been able to go to joe's gun shop, he likely could have acquired weapons elsewhere, or used another method of destruction...like explosives, poison, or fire.
and in almost every case, these horrible events were prefaced with significant planning and foresight. this person Cho prepared himself for some time, with marksmanship, reload-drills, preparing his escape-blocking routes, generating a manifesto, and the like. this was not a spur-of-the-moment passion killing, but premeditated assault on unarmed and terrified people.
lastly, on the idea of outlawing weapons to prevent crime...that worked especially well when the US decided to prevent alcohol-consumption with Prohibition, or "illegal" drug use with the DEA Narcotics Schedules and War on Drugs.
F2K is absolutely spot on. laws exist and work because people choose to follow them (think about that the next time you roll through a stop sign, turn right on red @ a no-turn sign, or exceed the speed limit on the highway...you are choosing to ignore a law which inconveniences you.) there is no legislative fix for crazy, and no govermental agency can protect you if you ignore your own safety.
-the hamster
(this may sound paranoid, but some here will know what im talking about. watch the people around you, know where your exits are, where the choke points are, and be aware of sightlines. these simple things increase your situational awareness and make you less likely to be caught unaware and trapped with no way out. and watch their hands...hands kill.)
|
Oh no doubt hunting and protection of nation are low on the radar screen for why we need guns still....but you never know what's going to happen. I'm not a survivalist by any means, but it's nice to know that I'm not dependent on anyone or any entity to be able to provide for my family.
I respect all you antigunners out there and I will always do everything I can to help protect my fellow citizens, even after I'm retired from law enforcement and walking around the golf course in plaid pants and smoking a cigar.
My wife chastised me for being one of the ones who threadjacked this into a gun vs. no gun debate. She's right, of course. The real weapon is between that sh!thead's ears.
My prayers go out to all the victims, their families and those affected by this mass murder. (It's not a tragedy, you godless media whores--it's a mass murder, not a plane crash!!!)
Amen to all you've said, man.
In response to F2K's post, all of your reasons involve the primary purpose: harm (except for investment, more later).
Hunting: There are many other ways to get food (bowhunting which I've done, traps, and the above mentioned farming and raising cattle).
Protection: To keep someone from harming you, hence you harm them.
Recreation: Practice to harm.
Investment: Not using something means not using it at all.
Protecting your neighbors: see above.
Protecting your country: I doubt all 80 million people will have the single purpose of protecting the U.S., it's more likely they will protect their own interests.
I don't intend for these remarks to be angry or hateful. I'm just pointing out that in my opinion, none of these answered my question.
Do I have a solution to the problem? No. Do I know what I can personally do about it? No. Do I want something done about it? Yes. It sucks, but because of the acts of the few (and our efforts so far are not correcting the problem), we have to take more drastic measures.
I'm sure young Cho would be proud to see that the national news outlets were so willing to be his mouthpiece.
They're just giving him the spotlight he really wanted and doesn't deserve under the guise of "we know you want to know more about what kind of person could do something like this."
Perhaps some do. I don't. I don't think that listening more closely to him prattle on about his personal problems would have done a thing in this guy's case. As if a school counsellor could have yanked one of these body bag stuffers back from the edge. His manifesto can say how the rich kids wouldn't let him play reindeer games but I read a first person account to the contrary.
"We tried to include him... it was like he didn't want to be friends with anyone."
He's just using blame on his utterly innocent victims to justify his antisocial behavior disorder/sociopathy. I don't care what music he listened to or how he dressed or what toppings he like on his sundaes. The man had some seriously bad wiring and seemed to see other students as nothing more than expendable bad guys in a shooter flick. You'd think from all of the ass rape in his writings that he'd, perhaps as a child, suffered a sodomy, and that's what twisted him... but I've run into these sodomy obsessed guys before and according to them, it isn't history, it's a fear. I can't feel bad for someone who's entire fear system is based around, "Don't let the phantom factions do me in the rear." No one wanted Cho's ass. That's wishful thinking on his part.
In response to F2K's post, all of your reasons involve the primary purpose: harm
I think our primary difference in opinion is the definition of harm. When a law-abiding citizen shoots and kills a criminal during an act of legal self defense or defense of others, I don't consider anyone "harmed."
I don't have a solution to this problem, as I mentioned in one of my previous posts. I admitted I'm not smart enough to figure out a solution to a problem that is rooted so much deeper than simply the availability of firearms.
|
I think our primary difference in opinion is the definition of harm. When a law-abiding citizen shoots and kills a criminal during an act of legal self defense or defense of others, I don't consider anyone "harmed."
I think it is pretty obvious that the criminal is harmed. He has human rights and it is arguable they are violated by summary justice like this. Personally, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over a specific incident but I'm not convinced I would be happy living is a society where this was considered perfectly OK. But this is a cultural thing, I suspect.
I don't think it's a cultural thing. Twice I've done first aid on criminals who were shot by my fellow police officers, as I was a medic in the Army. I was able to keep them both from bleeding out until paramedics got there. I can't say for sure they would have died had I not done anything, as I'm no doctor, but human life, even a criminal's, is precious in the U.S. just as much as in Britain.
I've never seen anyone stand around and watch someone die without trying to help them, citizens nor officers, even when the person was a criminal.
Your cultural comment seems to indicate that you think your pacifist society in Britain is somehow superior to the U.S. or you might be responding to a misunderstanding of what I have been posting. I apologize for any misunderstanding--I don't think U.S. culture is "superior" in any way. Just different in fundamental ways.
Why don't I think anyone is harmed when a criminal gets himself killed while committing a crime? Because I assign the responsibility for the criminal act and its consequences firmly into the hands of the criminal. I don't try to figure out if his bad parenting, society or the "unfairness of it all" is to blame. Sometimes life is just black and white.
|
|
Sometimes life is just black and white.
In my experience, life offers very few examples of Black and White for those capable of seeing the shades of grey. To Aubrey's point, even an obvious criminal in the commission of his crime has rights. To pretend that one does not is to invite more Amadou Diallo (sp?) situations. We have enough of those already, thanks. Very few of them get the publicity that the one in NYC did (and very few are of that scale).
Our (US) culture is an aggressive one. It's reinforced by the myth of the self-made man that's at the center of the American psyche. It's reinforced by our politicians and the way they act on the world stage. It's reinforced by our adherence to capital punishment, and our refusal to recognize the jurisdiction of international courts. It's reinforced by the way we prosecute our drug war (the problem is ALWAYS on the other side of our borders).
So, IF we passed an amendment that prohibited guns - basically struck down the second amendment - would you turn in your weapons? If you didn't, I guess you'd be okay with accepting responsibility for whatever the state decided to do to punish you. You can call that black and white, but I see lots of grey here.
What I don't understand is how this thread went from a place to air your feelings about a terrible, terrible tragedy to "my opinion vs. your opinion" about gun control. The only "weapon" that's to blame for what happened is the dark, fetid mass between that kid's ears that used to be his brain. I can only hope that if either of my kids were having these kind of dark, hateful feelings that I would be able to pick up on it and get them some help. I cannot, in any way, imagine the grief that the family members and friends of the victims or even the family of the shooter are going through and that's where my thoughts are now.
Right is right and wrong is wrong and no amount of arguing is going to change that basic fact. What this kid did was wrong and his parents need to figure out why he did it but it's too late now.
BTW - Aubrey, my husband, F2K, has never done, said or bought anything just because it was cool. But, it certainly goes without saying that he is very cool!! ;)
Watch out world, I got backup!!!
I have bought many things just because they were cool...what Silver is referring to is firearms. I actually have sold off a lot of firearms recently because I no longer had a use for them. I gave up hunting so I sold my hunting rifles, for example. I only sell my firearms to other police officers or to family members, as an extension of my choice to be a responsible gun owner, just in case you were wondering.
Sorry about the threadjack dear! It's pretty bad when you have to apologize to your wife for a threadjacking :)
So, IF we passed an amendment that prohibited guns - basically struck down the second amendment - would you turn in your weapons?
Yes, I would. Would you feel safer knowing that the gang bangers next door were laughing their asses off at the foolishness of passing a law that only affects the law-abiding citizens? Would you feel safer knowing that those you need not worry about having guns are the only ones who would turn them in?
Why does the police in Australia still have to carry guns?
Why are there "armed police" units even in the U.K?
Why do the police in countries with near total gun bans or total gun bans still have to carry guns themselves?
Like I said, laws will do nothing but make us "feel better that we did something."
Our crazy friend at VT obviously had premeditation. Sure, he shouldn't have been able to buy a gun at a gunshop, but since he was planning to do this anyway, do you really think it would have been very difficult for him to get a firearm had there been a total gun ban in effect?
Nah...he'd just have a wider field of victims to harvest from.
|
|
What I don't understand is how this thread went from a place to air your feelings about a terrible, terrible tragedy to "my opinion vs. your opinion" about gun control.
Well, I agree with you and I don't agree with you.
The national discourse will eventually go here again once some time has passed. Kaine (gov of VA) was pretty insistant that the gun control discussion was inappropriate at the national level right now, and I agree with him. Nothing's going to be settled in this argument, because as F2K points out, stats can be used to prove anything, and we've only gotten better at that with focus groups, PACs, and what-not. But it will be a natural place for the national discourse to go eventually. Everyone wants to see circumstances improve to limit these incidences in the future. We will just continue to disagree about the means to do that.
I raised the point earlier that what should be discussed was the school's response, the police response, and how technology might have helped those authorities respond faster and better. This sure seems like the kind of thing that all those homeland security dollars should have improved - and maybe they did. Hopefully this is another discussion that happens at the national level, because it has a better chance of reaching some kind of actionable consensus.
If only we could somehow get food without guns. Ah well, what can you do.It's called farming... lol
Ultradan
Whatever, real men harvest their vegetables with HOT LEAD.
|
|
So, IF we passed an amendment that prohibited guns - basically struck down the second amendment - would you turn in your weapons?Yes, I would. Would you feel safer knowing that the gang bangers next door were laughing their asses off at the foolishness of passing a law that only affects the law-abiding citizens. Would you feel safer knowing that those you need not worry about having guns are the only ones who would turn them in?
Good. That's the only principaled stand you could have taken.
First, I don't have gang bangers next door. Second, I do not agree that you are off the list of people with guns that I need to worry about. Third, I feel safe today, in my home, without guns - and that has nothing to do with my knowledge that my law abiding neighbor has one. I have a stout aluminum baseball bat under my bed and I will knock a home-invader's head over the fence in left field if they come into my home. BUT, if my home is broken into while I'm away, and my baseball bat is stolen, my conscience is secure in that the perps will probably not use my bat to go on a swinging spree.
A couple of years ago, some people across the street from my house had their home broken into. They were collectors, and the safe that they kept their guns in was part of what was stolen. I have no idea if the thieves managed to liberate those weapons, but there's a pretty good chance that they did. The home owners broke no laws. They even went the extra-mile to be responsible with their weapons. Nevertheless, there's a whole new cache of weapons in our streets.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm confused. Even assuming that guns should be kept out of civilian hands, can't we still give the police and other law enforcement officers guns? There are states of existence between Texas (everyone has a gun) and nirvana (no one has a gun).
Also, can't the same arguments for gun ownership be made about any weapon? E.g. I want a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. Yeah, I could use it to take out commercial planes, but that's illegal. I'll submit to a background check, I'll store it someplace safe, I'll only use it to defend myself against drive by shootings that are a problem in my neighborhood or for hunting (those godamn deer will fear me!)
I'm not fully convinced that people shouldn't be able to own weapons; at the end of the day it's a dog eat dog world and the zombies could rise up at any time. That being said, it seems like there are some significant categories of weapon that could be taken out of civilian hands while still preserving some of the virtues of gun ownership. Maybe just have shotguns, non-automatic pistols, and hunting rifles be available. Those should provide sufficient deterrent to criminals (to the extent such a deterrent exists) and allow for recreational activities.
As for the whole defense of country thing, if there is a force powerful enough to defeat the U.S. military, we're all pretty well f$%~ed anyway. I'm not sure what exactly a rag-tag militia of NRA members is going to accomplish against such a threat.
|
|
I don't think it's a cultural thing. Twice I've done first aid on criminals who were shot by my fellow police officers, as I was a medic in the Army. I was able to keep them both from bleeding out until paramedics got there. I can't say for sure they would have died had I not done anything, as I'm no doctor, but human life, even a criminal's, is precious in the U.S. just as much as in Britain.
I've never seen anyone stand around and watch someone die without trying to help them, citizens nor officers, even when the person was a criminal.
Your cultural comment seems to indicate that you think your pacifist society in Britain is somehow superior to the U.S. or you might be responding to a misunderstanding of what I have been posting. I apologize for any misunderstanding--I don't think U.S. culture is "superior" in any way. Just different in fundamental ways.
Why don't I think anyone is harmed when a criminal gets himself killed while committing a crime? Because I assign the responsibility for the criminal act and its consequences firmly into the hands of the criminal. I don't try to figure out if his bad parenting, society or the "unfairness of it all" is to blame. Sometimes life is just black and white.
I think you slightly misundersttod my point. Firstly, I don't see British culture as pacifistic - we had an empire, for Christ's sake, you don't get that by standing on a hill and singing "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing". And you have surreptitiously moves the goal posts slightly - I wasn't talking about after someone is shot, and leaving them to die, I was talking about the act of shooting. I think we probably both think our way is superior, as we wouldn't be arguing about it otherwise.
I'm a bit more concerned about the comment that any criminal is fair game to a passing citizen with a gun. What about the magnitude of the crime? Shoplifting? Speeding? Littering? And what about justice? It's supposed to be a jury of your peers, not the nearest guy with a Glock. That, I suppose is what bothers me. I don't mind dangerous criminals getting killed, by the police, to protect the innocent. I mind a lot about untrained have-a-go heroes blasting away.
And what about the girl you noted (with considerable approval) who held a gun to the burglar (how dangerous was he, by the way - he sounds a perv, but was he violent)? What if she had had to make the decision to fire? A 12 year old should not be put in that position, either becuase of their maturity (or lack thereof) or the potential for psychological damage.
I don't live in a pacifistic society, I live in a safer one because we aren't all packing pieces. We can quote dubious statistics at one another all night, but the chance of me getting shot is incredibly low. The reasons are obviously more complex than just the prevalence of firearms (the examples of Sweden, Finland and Switzerland are also important counterblasts to a simplistic approach to this) but from the pro-gun lobby there seems to be a romantic, almost rather unseemly attachment to instruments which, by and large, are held for the express purpose of killing other people. That is something you are used to and grew up with. It freaks me out.
|
|
Being a P.O. from what I've seen the police responded as they were supposed to do. (Not going into a disscussion of tactics post-columbine, but as far as I know and saw, they responded correctly)
I didn't really mean to imply that they didn't. But the two-hour gap between the incidences, and the fact that it seems none of the victims even knew about the first, might suggest that some improved policies could be put in place. That really has more to do with the school than with the police, though.
Also, can't the same arguments for gun ownership be made about any weapon? E.g. I want a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. Yeah, I could use it to take out commercial planes, but that's illegal. I'll submit to a background check, I'll store it someplace safe, I'll only use it to defend myself against drive by shootings that are a problem in my neighborhood or for hunting (those godamn deer will fear me!)
That being said, it seems like there are some significant categories of weapon that could be taken out of civilian hands while still preserving some of the virtues of gun ownership. Maybe just have shotguns, non-automatic pistols, and hunting rifles be available. Those should provide sufficient deterrent to criminals (to the extent such a deterrent exists) and allow for recreational activities.
The first part of your post made me crack up! Shoot deer and cook 'em at the same time. The ultimate in efficiency ;)
The latter is something that can be discussed. My home defense firearm is a five shot revolver. My 15 shot semi-automatic high powered pistol stays in my locker at work when I'm not working. However, mass murderers would then just need to reload more. If no one is courageous enough to tackle them and beat them into the bushes while they're reloading, it really doesn't do that much good.
The last "assault weapons ban" passed as "feel good" measure by the first Bush administration (and fought tooth and nail by the NRA of course) limited semi-automatic magazines to 10 rounds, and eliminated flash suppressors and bayonet lugs from semi-auto rifles. Wow! Of course if you bought your magazines or rifles before the ban, you were okay. What a ridiculous law! It's this kind of horseshit that pisses me off. Instead of working on real solutions involving training, technology, better gun detection equipment (so that places that prohibit firearms can actually ENFORCE their own rules), we just put on mascara.
Okay, and let's have courage to actually put mentally unstable people into the ATF database so they can be denied at the point of sale background check, which is an already existing law.
This "voluntary counseling" stuff is all fine and grand for people going through some temporary minor problems, but a guy who stalks women and writes plays so scary that they cause his college professors to wet their pants should be in protective custody and given a full brain workover instead of another politically correct band-aid of "voluntary counseling" that makes everyone think he was helped.
In the past, people like him spent a few years in a nice happy place. Nowadays we give him meds that we HOPE he takes and let him run around loose and we don't even have the guts to put him into the database that exists to keep people like him from legally purchasing a gun. Afraid of lawsuits? Afraid of being labelled racist or insensitive to the needs of the mentally ill? All that politically correct crap is not helping!!! Not the crazy guy, not the victims of mass murder!
Handgun control is a trade-off. You do reduce the likelihood of being murdered by a firearm (I've been crunching the stats for 2 days, looking for loopholes, but there's not much other way to look at them; I calculate about 2.2 times less likely per capita as a minimum, and 10 times less likely as a more realistic mean. I excluded Rio de Janiero from one side or the other because my sister-in-law just got back from there, and their supposed "gun control" really isn't).
BUT, as pointed out repeatedly by F2K, there's no way to eliminate that likelihood, just reduce it. And if it does happen to you, you're out of luck if you have no means of shooting back. So anyone who lives in a society with gun control trusts that they won't be one of that very small minority. Anyone in a society with easy access to guns has the responsibility to learn to use them, to wear a bulletproof vest, and to daggone well shoot first anytime they feel threatened, even if it means making someone else part of that larger minority.
People who are afraid for themselves, personally, will always prefer to have them around. People who want fewer people to be shot, even if it means they may be one of them, are likely to opt for control. What I like is that there's places on Earth for both types of people. F2K has made it quite clear that he freakin' LOVES guns. He belongs in the U.S. Firbolg should stay in Ireland. We're all happy that way... except maybe the kids at Virginia Tech and their families and friends. May peace be upon them.
Okay, and let's have courage to actually put mentally unstable people into the ATF database so they can be denied at the point of sale background check, which is an already existing law.
AMEN. It's a real stretch to include the mentally insane in the "well-regulated militia" of the Second Amendment
F2K has made it quite clear that he freakin' LOVES guns. He belongs in the U.S.
I don't LOVE guns. If we could get rid of them all and no one had them, I'd be first in line to support that. If we lived in a world where no guns were ever necessary, I would love it. I'm just a pragmatic realist.
I don't LOVE guns. If we could get rid of them all and no one had them, I'd be first in line to support that. If we lived in a world where no guns were ever necessary, I would love it. I'm just a pragmatic realist.
I'm with you; we're talking real life here, not Candyland. My point was that your attitude is the most pragmatic and realistic one for the conditions that obtain here in the U.S.A. For British standards, Firbolg is being pragmatic. For you to tote an arsenal to Wales, or for him to live in L.A. with no means of self-defense, would both be fairly insane.
Oh, wait -- first we'd need to elect lawmakers that aren't contemptible, deceitful sycophants.It always seems me that those are the only types of people who want those jobs!
What can we do?
Same as the Athinians--public office by lottery.
I must say that I agree with everyone who has said that the real problem is people (and how warped some of them are) and not the weapons. I personally do not like guns and feel I have no need for them, but I see no reason why others should agree with me and avoid them as well.
We need to figure out how to solve our problems without arbitrarily taking out our fellow students.
Yet another occurence to add to the "humanity sucks" file--especially the media reaction. Just wait, this is going to be the "it" example for every anti-gun politician in the next election. Disgusting.
Just wait, this is going to be the "it" example for every anti-gun politician in the next election. Disgusting.
Ironically, it already is for the "pro-gun" lobby here. I've heard probably ten times this week, "If all the students had guns, no one would ever be shot at schools!" They've obviously never taught at schools where "students" do have guns... But I certainly agree with the obvious: it would be a LOT better to identify murderers than to restict their means.
Just wait, this is going to be the "it" example for every anti-gun politician in the next election. Disgusting.Ironically, it already is for the "pro-gun" lobby here. I've heard probably ten times this week, "If all the students had guns, no one would ever be shot at schools!" They've obviously never taught at schools where "students" do have guns... But I certainly agree with the obvious: it would be a LOT better to identify murderers than to restict their means.
I heard TN is proposing to allow concealed weapons (with a permit) on state property. Ie national parks, govt. buildings and state ran COLLEGES.
Fizz
I heard TN is proposing to allow concealed weapons (with a permit) on state property. Ie national parks, govt. buildings and state ran COLLEGES.
From one point of view, that looks like a vicious circle: more gun violence means you obviously need more guns. Pretty soon we'll be issuing them to 4-year-olds for protection from bullies on the school bus.
I heard TN is proposing to allow concealed weapons (with a permit) on state property. Ie national parks, govt. buildings and state ran COLLEGES.From one point of view, that looks like a vicious circle: more gun violence means you obviously need more guns. Pretty soon we'll be issuing them to 4-year-olds for protection from bullies on the school bus.
Yeah but I do believe this was before VT. I'm not saying it's the right thing, but I'm not saying it's wrong. I wouldn't have any remorse if someone had pulled out their concealed weapon and shot the VT shooter. I've lost all hope of humans being a peacful race. I completely agree with F2K if everyone truly done away with guns I would be ok with giving up mine and wave a big farewell to all guns. However, I think we would all be carring swords then or at least bowie knives the next day.
Fizz
I completely agree with F2K if everyone truly done away with guns I would be ok with giving up mine and wave a big farewell to all guns. However, I think we would all be carring swords then or at least bowie knives the next day.
Yet for some reason I don't have a gun and never have really needed one...it is possible that if I had one, I would have used it, and that would be a whole new can of worms then.
I don't even have a knife outside my kitchen. Or blackjack or mace or whatever. Care to address why I am still alive?
I completely agree with F2K if everyone truly done away with guns I would be ok with giving up mine and wave a big farewell to all guns. However, I think we would all be carring swords then or at least bowie knives the next day.
Yet for some reason I don't have a gun and never have really needed one...it is possible that if I had one, I would have used it, and that would be a whole new can of worms then.
I don't even have a knife outside my kitchen. Or blackjack or mace or whatever. Care to address why I am still alive?
You're a monk? or wizard?
Fizz
well, the fallout from this event is just about what I expected; sigh dissappointingly so. I must say, there is almost no security at my Alma Mater, but college is supposed to be a place to exchange ideas within a controlled environment, not exchange gunfire in a random setting. Bad guys +1: good guys -1 a bunch. You just cannot and have never been able to legeslate morality; either people will follow the law or not; to those who won't it does not matter how many laws you make as they are not affected by it anyway.
The ex teachers who posted about violence in school; thank you for the insight. I always thought expelling a student for fighting was wrong; bet you could push it as illegal to if you had enough money; seems kids should be directed into more positive outcomes than expulsion; that is just avoidance behavior and very negative.
I can't get the shame that this guys family is under out of my head; keep reading about it; wow; this whole thing just keeps getting sadder and sadder.
BTW owning a gun is not about need. 1) it is your duty as an citizen to own a gun in the event that you must retake back your government if it becomes a dictatorship; that is the whole point. 2) many gun owners just have them sitting around doing nothing; I know quite a few who havent shot thiers in over a decade. 3) many gun owners like to target shoot or participate in shooting competitions as a matter of skill and entertainment; really not much different from bowling or dart throwing. 4)as long as anyone on the planet has a gun I intend to have at least one and the planet keeps getting smaller and people seem to be getting more hateful. 5) some people like to hunt; some of these use guns; this is an American tradition older than the Constitution and many people believe it is their God given right. Regardless of how you feel about that; there are various things like deer, elk, cougars, and whatnot that must be controlled or their numbers swell to the deteriment of man's activities; the Game and Fish department counts and is responsible for their control so they organize and sell permits to hunt and set parameters; without hunters these animals would be euthanized; ie murdered, and all their meat and whatnot wasted.
If you think that firearms are only to kill people; you are sadly uniformed and underexperienced and undereducated. The first shooting team I was on was shooting a .22 rifle at a small target 25 or 50 feet away; dont remember exactly as it was almost three decades ago; but, it was not easy and I was not the best; competition was intense and bullets at two and a half cents a peice made this activity accessable to someone of my poverty level. Since then I have been on several shooting teams; shot in various competitions; really - cowboy action shooting is my favorite as the cops are afraid of letting us civilians upstage them in their shooting events - and have yet to hear of anyone getting hurt; you can't say that about many other competitions - wanna try to make an likewise arguement for football?
Nothing scares me more than police with guns; of course, in my city they kill more people than anyone; they call it suicide by police and blow it off.
|
|
Nothing scares me more than police with guns; of course, in my city they kill more people than anyone; they call it suicide by police and blow it off.
Reminds me of a news story I read while I was in California. Basically what happened was:
A police officer is called in to confront a hallucinogen-addled woman outside of a shopping mall (when I say addles, I mean really, really f~#$ing addled. She was naked, screaming obscenities, and eating lit cigarrettes). When the officer got out of his car to confront her, she ran behind him and got in the driver's seat of the squad car. So the officer shot her.
Screwed up on multiple levels.
5) some people like to hunt
Nothing against hunting...I know good number of people who hunt. The thing is that relatively few guns are good for hunting. Rifles and shotguns, yes (and crossbows). Automatic anything, assault rifles, bazookas, Molotov cocktails, easily concealed handguns, nuclear warheads, no.
just my two EUROcents...
The point about gun-control laws is - in my opinion - important.
It is definitely true that in countries where gun-control laws are enforced (like here in italy) armed violence is a lot less frequent.
The point is that, while it is true that criminals will always capable to get armed, the real boon of these laws is to keep weapons away from pyschos.
the massacre at VAtech wasn't made by criminals.. but by a psichotic student.
Who just had been permitted to buy weapons freely... this is really scary.
And on a second level, if the priority is to save citizen's lives, not permitting them to go around armed can save their lives simply because someone who wants to steal something (a criminal, not a psycho) will be less inclined to shoot - fearing some citizen's armed response - during the theft(risking a much more heavy imputation). this won't stop theft, but make them sell bloody.
Here in my town last week we had three bank robberies.
weapons fired: none. (no-one had the need to. here tellers have strict orders to simply give the money without endangering themselves or the customers - thiefs know this and are much less prone to use violence because of this)
people killed or wounded: none.
the banks were insured for the loss.
Was it better to start gunfights to protect some tens of thousand insured euros?
Mr. walker, texas ranger: thanks but NO, thanks.
|
|
Reminds me of a news story I read while I was in California. Basically what happened was:
A police officer is called in to confront a hallucinogen-addled woman outside of a shopping mall (when I say addles, I mean really, really f!@@ing addled. She was naked, screaming obscenities, and eating lit cigarrettes). When the officer got out of his car to confront her, she ran behind him and got in the driver's seat of the squad car. So the officer shot her.
Screwed up on multiple levels.
Um, isn't that murder? I wasn't there but, as described, there at least seems a case to answer. Has the officer been arrested or anything?
hehe my keyboard is pretty sad and needs replacing; lot of keys semi work and the space button is problematic; takes sometimes three or four times to get a word right and sometimes I get frazzled and dont go back and fix things; uninformed heh is that better.
sigh, me thinks people dont read very much history.
Was it better to start gunfights to protect some tens of thousand insured euros?
Mr. walker, texas ranger: thanks but NO, thanks.
Walker Texas Ranger never used guns just round house kicks...but in all serious 3 bank robberies in a week!?!? I don't think I have ever heard of 3 bank robberies in the same town in a week. I don't think criminals in the U.S. are that bold, and it is more than likly because you run the risk of getting shot here. I also believe I've read that robberies in England and Europe are double than that in the U.S. I don't find it encouraging that criminals are bolder, but less likly to use force. I don't want them to kill me, but I don't want them violating my home, the secruity of my family, or stealing my things either.
Fizz
|
|
Was it better to start gunfights to protect some tens of thousand insured euros?
Mr. walker, texas ranger: thanks but NO, thanks.
Walker Texas Ranger never used guns just round house kicks...but in all serious 3 bank robberies in a week!?!? I don't think I have ever heard of 3 bank robberies in the same town in a week. I don't think criminals in the U.S. are that bold, and it is more than likly because you run the risk of getting shot here. I also believe I've read that robberies in England and Europe are double than that in the U.S. I don't find it encouraging that criminals are bolder, but less likly to use force. I don't want them to kill me, but I don't want them violating my home, the secruity of my family, or stealing my things either.
Fizz
Depends on the town, I suspect. They certainly are less common than that in the UK. On having stuff stolen, I had my D&D stuff stolen a few months ago. Very annoying - but it was a sneak thief on a bike (a few other people saw him) not a heavily tooled up assassin. I'm alive, and I bought new books.
Really, this whole thing boils down to values. Where do you draw the line? There is a lot of hand-wringing when a maniac runs amok and kills loads of people in the US. But to European eyes, the answer is obvious - restrict access to firearms. All those who want to "blame the person, not the weapon" are sort of missing the point - the person and the weapon are key to the carnage. If you really want to keep your guns, fine (I don't see it as a fundamental right, like habeas corpus, but wouldn't want to upset anyone either) but you need to be comfortable with the occasional mass shooting too - i.e. more frequent than in countries with stricter gun controls. Prayer isn't really a viable alternative.
I'm not sure I would prefere a less likely but violent robbery instad of a more likely but not-violent robbery....
Buy I can agree how Fiz feels.
This is the problem we have in Italy... laws are so geared toward the rights of the criminals that it's really difficult to keep them in jail for long...
A common - but sadly real - joke among my policeman friends says that usually criminals get uot of jail faster than the time it takes to the policeman who arressted them to compile the necessary papers to convalidate the arrest...
This IS a problem we ought to address. But it's a really long story....
But at least we haven't never had any Waco or Columbine or VA Tech happening in Italy.
This is definitely good thing I believe.
I don't see it as a fundamental right, like habeas corpus, but wouldn't want to upset anyone either
We've recently done away with habeas corpus here in the U.S. also-- at least for non-citizens.
|
|
Um, isn't that murder? I wasn't there but, as described, there at least seems a case to answer. Has the officer been arrested or anything?Reminds me of a news story I read while I was in California. Basically what happened was:
A police officer is called in to confront a hallucinogen-addled woman outside of a shopping mall (when I say addles, I mean really, really f!@@ing addled. She was naked, screaming obscenities, and eating lit cigarrettes). When the officer got out of his car to confront her, she ran behind him and got in the driver's seat of the squad car. So the officer shot her.
Screwed up on multiple levels.
I haven't been keeping up on the case, but five days after = no news. I'm guessing no.