Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 2:20 pm Posts: 2124 Location: invading your world Gender: female
i think you'd be better off just leaving the guns alone. except maybe put in the education campaigns for them like VD said above. killers will just use other means to carry out their murders (be it knives, homade bombs, blunt objects, poisons, etc., etc...) and the with gun restrictions there's the general populace-the victims-at the mercy of these people. the shooting that's the cause of all this could've very likely been avoided or had a much smaller fatality count if the teachers kept small firearms with them.
plus restricting guns wouldn't work anyway...it's very easy to make a homade gun that's 100% functional and lethal. so, taking guns away would do pretty much nothing...
don't cry for me when i'm gone, just send me a friend request idiot: PSN TenkaiNankobu
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 8:06 pm Posts: 797 Gender: male
Seth, on the same day 22 children were slashed in China. Difference being that there were no fatalities. A gun and a knife and a sharp stick are all very different, can be used lethally but have limitations. Weapons dont kill people, people kill people is not a valid argument for giving people RPGs nor for arming the general populace until shootouts occur and civilians get harmed either by shooting mistakenly at each other or in the crossfire by wading untrained into battle.
If a guy had a chainsaw, and I was thinking on my feet, I think I could delay him either by throwing tables/chairs at him or simply outrunning him. Cannot be done by gun holder. Same with a vehicle, its limitations from size to manuveurability limit the damage it can do and how it goes about doing it. There is clearly something wrong with America, it has disproportionate number regarding homicides for developed countries. It could be its glorification of gun culture to be blamed. It could be other issues but then the numbers would have to be mirrored by European nations/Australia.
Guns dont inherently cause death, but they, the culture that surrounds them, has a key role in causing death. Arming teachers is not the way to go about it. Please dont tell me you think this is a good idea. Especially regarding schools in more disadvantaged areas. Teachers may get their firearms taken.
The US gun issue is delicate and complex, but rolling back on guns is probably needed, not ramping their inclusion into society up even more.
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:42 pm Posts: 525 Location: N/A Gender: male
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is a valid response. Many Americans have guns but are not going to schools shooting little children. Arming "some" teachers with guns may be the answer.
Now our constitution states we have the right to bear arms. Criminals will still get weapons whether there are legal or not. So you are saying you want to take away guns from the people who are using them legally and if they were threatened use for defense? Last year there were people trying to break into a woman's home. She had a young infant and was forced to shoot the intruders. What id she didn't have a gun?
And taking away people's guns probably won't work. I can see people fighting to keep their guns.
How many guns are used for defense, and how many legal guns are used for crimes or accidents? The police should be there for defense: sure they're not always there, the police system has its flaws, but that doesn't mean we should add up to their job with something that's supposed to compensate for such flaws. Civvies are largely untrained with a gun. Surely a gun does not kill, but guns are made for the sole purpose of being able to cause fatal damage to practically any living being. Humans are completely vulnerable to guns. You need extensive training in order to actually be able to use a tool useable only to killing, without actually killing. And we can't even keep it away from our kids, who are even less eligible to have them. Or psychopaths somehow get their hands on an arsenal and go on a killing spree. You can make such weapons at home, but you need the knowledge, and surely it won't be as good a tool as the guns out there in the current weapons market. You make it that much harder to get your hands on a gun. And as said, a knife is not as effective as a gun. There's not many weapons that have the effectiveness of a gun, and an incredible number of them belong to the military. If there's any weapon available to the public worse than a gun, it's probably an object so dangerous it can kill as easy as a gun. Even cars don't fall to that. You can only drive 1 car at a time, and people walking by can usually dodge a car, and that car usually crashes after such an attempt. Guns can have an almost infinite # of ammo, which accounts to a huge prospect of deaths once you're willing to use them. Try killing 30+ people with a fork (don't really). You will most probably get taken down before even the first.
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:21 am Posts: 2749 Location: Bangalore, India Gender: male
1. Removing guns from the population, would mean removing guns from the law abiding citizens that dont shoot anyone, either for self defence or for anything else. So it wouldnt really solve the problem, it would infact tilt the balance in favor of the criminals who are never going to give away their weapons. For instance, in India there are a lot of places where people FORGE their own guns. Those guns are not reliable. But they shoot. In the US there is so much of knowledge and exposure to weapons that I dont doubt that someone can actually make his/her own weapons. The 2nd amendment shouldnt have been written in the first place, but then, today its far too late to try and take away guns from people.
2. I do think there needs to be stricter policies when it comes to issuing gun licences, purchasing weapons, registering weapons. I dont think ammo should be sold in Walmart where every tom, *CENSORED* and harry can walk in and buy as many rounds as he wants.
-Strict requirements are needed. A person should be financially, mentally and legally sound, in order to first qualify to even apply.
-A gun license should only be issued after the person demonstrates through both written as well as practical exams, about gun safety, knowledge about ammo, cleaning weapons, holding and shooting weapons etc.,
-A mandatory training of a certain period should be required of any person applying for a gun license. Grandfather teaching grandchildren doesnt count.
-The license would be valid only for a specific number of years and the person would have to repeat the training as well as the tests to extend his licensed period.
-Gun licenses should be revoked immediately for people, who commit the first offence with it. For people who use guns for self defence, the license should be suspended, and based on results of the investigation, those licenses should be given/taken away.
Purchase of Ammunition: (Rip off of Switzerland's laws )
- There should be a cap on the amount of ammunition a person purchases. Something like 100 rounds per year (For their home defence calibers). This should only be sold after the ammo is registered in a person's name. This ammo would be for personal defence ONLY. If you have suffered no personal defence issues, you would be required to submit the box of ammo for review, every year, to ensure that you havent used any of those bullets for undue purposes.
- For shooting sports, everyone would be required to go to the range and enjoy as much as they want. They would only be able to purchase ammo for semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles, sniper rifles etc, in the range. This purchase would again be registered in your name, but can be unlimited. This ammunition needs to be used on the range itself. You cannot take it back home. So essentially, your assault rifles would be useless outside the range, which is how it should be.
-Sale of rifle ammo, hand gun ammo (beyond 100 rounds per person), shotgun shells, black powder, casing, bullets etc should be completely banned and punishable by law.
-Purchase of hunting rifles and hunting ammo can be unlimited. These guns do not hold a lot of rounds, and are difficult to conceal.
- Should be totally banned. No one can carry weapons concealed. Period. A lot of the states in the US do not offer concealed carry permits, and therefore this wouldnt be very difficult.
These restrictions would ensure that you take away the most important aspect about mass murders - the ammo. But at the same time, you let people defend themselves and own guns without infringing on their rights.
Today, one group in america wants to run around armed to the teeth, and another group wants to compeltely disarm them. Us vs Them is never productive.
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 10:47 pm Posts: 2226 Location: U.S.A. Gender: male
If that kid was hell bent enough to kill people, he could have easily gotten into a car and waited until school let out and everyone was crowded around to mow them over. This has happened before. A simple Google search shows the search terms "car runs over crowd" produces 87,600,000 results!! Should we ban cars?
They are also saying that this kid watched violent video games, and listened to heavy metal *gasp* just like those kids at Columbine! Should we then let them assume that this contributed, and they should ban that stuff too?
While we are at it, people have been killed with afrying panon a few occasions too...looks like we should probably think about cooking in pots exclusively. They are much harder and more awkward to wield. It might remove any possible urge to use them as a blunt weapon. You could kill alot of people with a frying pan!
What about paperclips and rubber bands? They can beused to kill as well! BAN THEM!
The fact is, there are a million ways to kill people. Someone bent on killing someone else has a good likelihood of succeeding by several means. Guns do not stand alone.
Ive heard it said a hundred times, and know it to be true. If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws in the population will have guns. Regular, sane and non homicidal people will be at a serious loss to defend themselves.
I am absolutely amazed right now at the corporate media minions whose deepest thinking for themselves on air stops at reading a teleprompter. They are spinning this with the corporate lines, and molding your opinions to suit their corporate agendas.
You know what I want to know? What drugs was this kid on? I do not know how many times ive had to watch pharmaceutical commercials with long disturbing lists of side effects, up to and including SUICIDAL THOUGHTS AND TENDENCIES! Even the corporate media in the US said this kid was troubled and likely on anti-psychotic drugs..
Ive seen people ive known my whole life go off the rails on things the doctor put them on. My own mother freaked out and trashed the house before kicking her way through a door and disappearing for 5 hours on foot(and she is a collective and salt of the earth person), after the doctor decided Prozac was a good idea for her. Us kids ( I was 12 or 13 at the time) were terrified. We had NEVER seen that out of her! She looked like a zombie. Like a person I did not know, and later told us she didnt remember it! WTFudge?!! This was our rock! Our foundation, going off the hinges!
If this kid was on ANY anti-psychotic med, ALL BETS ARE OFF. Period. Why are we not hearing anything about what this kid was on? Nothing. Everywhere you look its the SAME. That is not journalism. That is propaganda. The facts on this case have flip flopped and been misreported and re-misreported, and amazingly, all of the same 'wrong facts' were being spewed in sync by all of the different outlets here in the states and abroad!
First it was this guy, then it was that guy. First mom worked there, then she didnt. First it was 2 guys, and they had a 2nd gunman in the woods outside, then it was 1?! It seemed like all of the info was coming through the same one person, accross all news channels and sources, and he is a moron. It was and still is, absolutely amazing. Turn off the TV. Use the internet first to have a good look around at who owns and funds, and gives the most to these media outlets that are doing all of your thinking for you.
Think like a criminal. The day that guns are outlawed in the US is a happy day for you. You are still going to get guns. Its as easy as going to Mexico, because then you can just get all the guns that the US ships to the cartels through the ATF and CIA , and bring them back home, and not have to worry about that possibility of breaking into the home of someone who can defend themselves. There is now no risk for you. You can kick in a door as you see fit, and the only time you face a risk is if you run in with another criminal or outlaw.
No, youve got an assault rifle. You can clear a whole house before law abiding farmer joe can load his double-barrel 12 gauge and snap it shut, let alone take aim.
The fact is that evil will always exist. You cannot regulate evil out of the world, and despite what you may think, having guns does not make people evil.
Remember, this took place in CT, where gun laws were some of the tightest in the country already. Out of all the places ive been, TX has got it right. EVERYONE carries a gun, and you don't see this crap happening there. When I lived there, I had a roomate with a daughter whom I took to school and even sat in on some of her music classes, and their principal open-carried a handgun on his hip. This guys was a hero to those kids, and you just KNEW he would give his life to defend them. And if he couldnt, there was a deputy somewhere on campus with an assault rifle who could.
Just imagine for a second what a principal, or any citizen for that matter with a sidearm could have done in this instance?
Consider the woman in this video, who stopped just such a homicidal maniac who entered a church in Colorado in 2007 with an assault rifle and the intent to kill as many people as possible. You wont hear about this on CNN.
_________________ Battle Dawn Staff Community Management Specialist Technical Support World Administrator Music Composer
Welcome to the best free multiplayer war strategy game on the web!
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:21 am Posts: 2749 Location: Bangalore, India Gender: male
Seth, that line of argument - Should we ban cars, Should we ban kitchen knives etc is not a relevant comparison. Our goal is not to stop crime completely, we just cannot. The goal is to make it less easier for people, or impossible for people to use guns as an accessory to their crime. Guns DO make it easier. Its far easier to shoot a guy than to slit his throat. Plus, using any other tool as a weapon, gives you time to react and probably defend yourself much better. Guns are totally different.
Now I agree that outlawing guns is a ridiculous proposition, it will do more harm than good. But I guess there has to be strict gun control laws. Like where you use them, carry them etc., You point to a 1 woman who saved some shooting. Compare that with the number of shootings that have occurred, number of accidental discharges that have killed people then that one case is irrelevant. She stood an equal chance of getting herself killed in the firefight. And she used an assault rifle inside a church? LOL. What if someone else was behind the killer and the bullet over-penetrated and killed the other person too? It was a dumb thing to do. But she got lucky. So be it.
The problem with America is that people wanna possess as many guns, as many types of guns, as much of ammo as they want. This is wrong. America is not a "well regulated militia" TODAY. 65% of America is obese. Do you think these fatasses will be able to "defend" the nation? Thats just not gonna happen. The only use for guns today, is for the shooting sports. I have shot in the US too. Its awesome. I love it. I wanna do it again and I wish that such rights are not taken away from people. But then again, if you are gonna be able to keep a million rounds of rifle ammo in your house, that is what is causing the problem. Instead you guys should change it. Ammo will only be sold in ranges, and you cant take it home. You have to use it there itself. Maybe the govt can subsidize those prices making it easier for people who self reload stuff. So you can have the gun, not the ammo. And for self defence, you can have some 9mm or .45 caliber ammo, in limited quantity, again strictly controlled. If you cant kill a guy with 100 rounds, you are not gonna kill him. So you dont need more than that. And you have to submit that ammo for review every year. If they find 1 bullet used and if you cannot justify where you used it, then you probably misused it. You license gets revoked, an investigation should start. This is how you limit gun crime. These are not my ideas, these are Switzerland's laws. When conservatives point to Swiss gun laws to support their argument, they ignore all of these other constraints that keeps gun crimes in Switzerland low.
BTW people with a CCW license, think they are very proactive. Its not the case. Watch:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum