This topic is locked from further discussion.
Why are people worried about guns when people die more from car wrecks, cancer, and heart disease? You people have have your priorities screwed up. Worry more about real killers than someone practicing their right to bear arms.
Freedom FTW!
Anyway, pots ben banned but kids still get their hands on it.
You wanna know why I should have a gun? Because governments tend to become too overbearing and become tyrannical. In the words of our forefathers, "It is our right as citizens to protect ourselves against an overly tyrannical government. Every citizens thus has the right to bear arms".Vandalvideoagreed. look at germany in WW2.
[QUOTE="felixlynch777"]The thing that a lot of Pro-Gun people are missing, is that criminals aren't born, they are made. So what happens when the former good law-abiding person suddenly goes bad?Sajedene
Oh, I'm sorry... did your .45 caliber pistol tell you to go crazy and pull the trigger? If your gun MAKES you go bad -- then I would really love having a gun next to me if you try to do anything crazy around me.
You've completely missed the point. Let's say the former good guys wife cheats on him with another man. He goes crazy from it and decides to use his gun (which he bought to protect his family) to kill his wife. The "Criminals are only bad with guns' arguement is extremely flawed.
[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]The thing that a lot of Pro-Gun people are missing, is that criminals aren't born, they are made. So what happens when the former good law-abiding person suddenly goes bad?felixlynch777
Oh, I'm sorry... did your .45 caliber pistol tell you to go crazy and pull the trigger? If your gun MAKES you go bad -- then I would really love having a gun next to me if you try to do anything crazy around me.
You've completely missed the point. Let's say the former good guys wife cheats on him with another man. He goes crazy from it and decides to use his gun (which he bought to protect his family) to kill his wife. The "Criminals are only bad with guns' arguement is extremely flawed.
Okay... maybe I'm missing it now but you seem to be contradicting yourself on your post.
A good guy who becomes a bad guy is a bad guy irregardless of what weapon they use to kill another. That man who finds his wife cheating on him could as easily used a knife, poison, or his bare hands to commit that crime.
[QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]The thing that a lot of Pro-Gun people are missing, is that criminals aren't born, they are made. So what happens when the former good law-abiding person suddenly goes bad?felixlynch777
Oh, I'm sorry... did your .45 caliber pistol tell you to go crazy and pull the trigger? If your gun MAKES you go bad -- then I would really love having a gun next to me if you try to do anything crazy around me.
You've completely missed the point. Let's say the former good guys wife cheats on him with another man. He goes crazy from it and decides to use his gun (which he bought to protect his family) to kill his wife. The "Criminals are only bad with guns' arguement is extremely flawed.
Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
needled24-7
[QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
loco145
There was nothing stopping him from going on the internet and learning how to make a dozen pipebombs either.
[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
-TheSecondSign-
There was nothing stopping him from going on the internet and learning how to make a dozen pipebombs either.
That would have required a lot of more planning and setup from his part. perhaps he could have even been busted while setting them![QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
loco145
You are right. But i would bet you that if the teachers were carrying guns he wouldn't have killed nearly as many people.
I think if Americans are obsessed with guns then there would be more than 200 million guns on the streets. That isn't even enough to give one to every american and i would be willing to be that most people who own a gun own a couple more too so the amount of people who actually own guns is much smaller than the amount of guns out there right now. My family owns a bunch of guns and we have done nothing wrong...i don't see a problem with obsession as long as we don't hurt anyone else (which we are not). hoola
We own six, and by the end of the year we'll probably own eight or nine.
We still need a skeet shotgun.
[QUOTE="felixlynch777"][QUOTE="Sajedene"][QUOTE="felixlynch777"]The thing that a lot of Pro-Gun people are missing, is that criminals aren't born, they are made. So what happens when the former good law-abiding person suddenly goes bad?needled24-7
Oh, I'm sorry... did your .45 caliber pistol tell you to go crazy and pull the trigger? If your gun MAKES you go bad -- then I would really love having a gun next to me if you try to do anything crazy around me.
You've completely missed the point. Let's say the former good guys wife cheats on him with another man. He goes crazy from it and decides to use his gun (which he bought to protect his family) to kill his wife. The "Criminals are only bad with guns' arguement is extremely flawed.
Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
If there is a gun present it certainly makes it easier, point and shoot, something you can do without thinking in seconds. Beating, stabbing, poisoning all take more time then pointing and pulling a trigger.
All the other ways to kill someone give the other person a chance to flee. If the aggressor has a gun there is almost no chance to run away.
[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
loco145
There was nothing stopping him from going on the internet and learning how to make a dozen pipebombs either.
That would have required a lot of more planning and setup from his part. perhaps he could have even been busted while setting them!Selling them? He didn't have to sell ****.
You can learn to make them from the internet, that's how many bombers learn to make them. There are dozens of ways to learn how to make IEDs, and you could do it with materials that are so commonplace you wouldn't raise any suspicion at all.
It's the same as crystal meth. It's so easy to make and over the counter materials can create it, so you can't find out whose making it until it's too late and it's already been made, and possibly used.
Nothing was stopping him from entering that school and planting bombs he hid in a backpack in certain areas and then detonating them by cellphone. Plenty of criminals regularly make pipebombs and IEDs, which is why there's such a need for bomb squads in Police Units.
Guns should be restricted. Have them mandate tests every once in a while (maybe six months or so) to make sure you are mentally able to wield a gun, and that you have no pressing issues that may change that (such as a traumatic event).
Even then, guns should still be allowed only in designated areas, like hunting ranges. There is no sense whatsoever in having a gun around your house, especially if you have children.
Gun permits are handed out like candy on Halloween, and any stupid/insane/angry guy with a grudge can get a permit and buy a gun at the nearest Wal-Mart.
The Second Amendment is sorely outdated and needs to be changed. It was originally created to protect the people from corrupt government. Now, back then they didn't have these things called "cars," nor did they have the massive federal government we have today. If our government becomes corrupt, a few firearms isn't going to bring them down.
If someone breaks into your home, do you honestly think you're gonna go for your gun? Let's think about that: If you have a family and are responsible, you keep your unloaded gun in a high place and locked in some kind of safe, away from bullets. Now, if someone breaks into your home, and you are lucky enough to hear it happen, do you seriously think you'll have the time (or the courage) to run to your hiding spot, unlock the safe, load the gun and use it? This is completely assuming that you are in a position where you can quietly get to your gun in the first place.
Outlawing guns will not give criminals a greater access to guns. Japan strictly forbids guns and they have one of the lowest gun crime rates on Earth.
The truth is, some people are obsessed with guns in this country, and it is a meaningless obsession with no justification.
[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
-TheSecondSign-
There was nothing stopping him from going on the internet and learning how to make a dozen pipebombs either.
That would have required a lot of more planning and setup from his part. perhaps he could have even been busted while setting them!Selling them? He didn't have to sell ****.
You can learn to make them from the internet, that's how many bombers learn to make them. There are dozens of ways to learn how to make IEDs, and you could do it with materials that are so commonplace you wouldn't raise any suspicion at all.
It's the same as crystal meth. It's so easy to make and over the counter materials can create it, so you can't find out whose making it until it's too late and it's already been made, and possibly used.
Nothing was stopping him from entering that school and planting bombs he hid in a backpack in certain areas and then detonating them by cellphone. Plenty of criminals regularly make pipebombs and IEDs, which is why there's such a need for bomb squads in Police Units.
I said setting them up. Sorry for the confusion.[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
hoola
You are right. But i would bet you that if the teachers were carrying guns he wouldn't have killed nearly as many people.
The people who did Columbine also made:
With instructions from the Internet, they also built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They also sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns in order to make them easier to conceal.[4] The two perpetrators committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began.
Also I'd like to go on record by stating that there was another shooting incident at a school where two students used their own guns to fight off the school shooter, but I can't remember where it was.
[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
loco145
There was nothing stopping him from going on the internet and learning how to make a dozen pipebombs either.
That would have required a lot of more planning and setup from his part. perhaps he could have even been busted while setting them!Selling them? He didn't have to sell ****.
You can learn to make them from the internet, that's how many bombers learn to make them. There are dozens of ways to learn how to make IEDs, and you could do it with materials that are so commonplace you wouldn't raise any suspicion at all.
It's the same as crystal meth. It's so easy to make and over the counter materials can create it, so you can't find out whose making it until it's too late and it's already been made, and possibly used.
Nothing was stopping him from entering that school and planting bombs he hid in a backpack in certain areas and then detonating them by cellphone. Plenty of criminals regularly make pipebombs and IEDs, which is why there's such a need for bomb squads in Police Units.
I said setting them up. Sorry for the confusion.The Columbine murderers made 99 without interference, from instructions on the internet. There is no way of stopping them from creating a bomb, just like 90% of the time, you can't stop someone from getting an illegal firearm.
[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
-TheSecondSign-
There was nothing stopping him from going on the internet and learning how to make a dozen pipebombs either.
That would have required a lot of more planning and setup from his part. perhaps he could have even been busted while setting them!Selling them? He didn't have to sell ****.
You can learn to make them from the internet, that's how many bombers learn to make them. There are dozens of ways to learn how to make IEDs, and you could do it with materials that are so commonplace you wouldn't raise any suspicion at all.
It's the same as crystal meth. It's so easy to make and over the counter materials can create it, so you can't find out whose making it until it's too late and it's already been made, and possibly used.
Nothing was stopping him from entering that school and planting bombs he hid in a backpack in certain areas and then detonating them by cellphone. Plenty of criminals regularly make pipebombs and IEDs, which is why there's such a need for bomb squads in Police Units.
I said setting them up. Sorry for the confusion.The Columbine murderers made 99 without interference, from instructions on the internet. There is no way of stopping them from creating a bomb, just like 90% of the time, you can't stop someone from getting an illegal firearm.
On the other hand, those explosives didn't killed anyone. Their semi-automatic rifles were another story though.[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"][QUOTE="hoola"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]But with a gun is a heck of a lot easier. I seriously doubt that Seung-Hui Cho would have killed 32 people with a baseball bat.Because everybody knows that shooting someone with a gun is the only way to kill a person :roll:.
If someone really wants to kill another person, they'll do it whether they have a gun or not.
loco145
You are right. But i would bet you that if the teachers were carrying guns he wouldn't have killed nearly as many people.
The people who did Columbine also made:
With instructions from the Internet, they also built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes.
On the other hand, those explosives didn't killed anyone. Their semi-automatic rifles were another story though.On the other hand, my guns haven't killed anyone, so I should get to keep them.
And they would've used the explosives if they had no other choice, or they wouldn't have made them, showing that Columbine was unavoidable. Even if there were no guns, they would've still commited the act, and may have possibly killed even more people.
Guns should be restricted. Have them mandate tests every once in a while (maybe six months or so) to make sure you are mentally able to wield a gun, and that you have no pressing issues that may change that (such as a traumatic event).
Even then, guns should still be allowed only in designated areas, like hunting ranges. There is no sense whatsoever in having a gun around your house, especially if you have children.
Gun permits are handed out like candy on Halloween, and any stupid/insane/angry guy with a grudge can get a permit and buy a gun at the nearest Wal-Mart.
The Second Amendment is sorely outdated and needs to be changed. It was originally created to protect the people from corrupt government. Now, back then they didn't have these things called "cars," nor did they have the massive federal government we have today. If our government becomes corrupt, a few firearms isn't going to bring them down.
If someone breaks into your home, do you honestly think you're gonna go for your gun? Let's think about that: If you have a family and are responsible, you keep your unloaded gun in a high place and locked in some kind of safe, away from bullets. Now, if someone breaks into your home, and you are lucky enough to hear it happen, do you seriously think you'll have the time (or the courage) to run to your hiding spot, unlock the safe, load the gun and use it? This is completely assuming that you are in a position where you can quietly get to your gun in the first place.
Outlawing guns will not give criminals a greater access to guns. Japan strictly forbids guns and they have one of the lowest gun crime rates on Earth.
The truth is, some people are obsessed with guns in this country, and it is a meaningless obsession with no justification.
Theokhoth
Heh, I think you read my mind. I agree entirely.
Guns should be restricted. Have them mandate tests every once in a while (maybe six months or so) to make sure you are mentally able to wield a gun, and that you have no pressing issues that may change that (such as a traumatic event).
Even then, guns should still be allowed only in designated areas, like hunting ranges. There is no sense whatsoever in having a gun around your house, especially if you have children. Why? If a parent is irresponsible then thats their problem. Not mine.
Gun permits are handed out like candy on Halloween, and any stupid/insane/angry guy with a grudge can get a permit and buy a gun at the nearest Wal-Mart. You got statistics on that? Each state has different laws. Each county has different laws following the state laws. And (I know from my state here in CA) we do not honor permits from other states.
The Second Amendment is sorely outdated and needs to be changed. It was originally created to protect the people from corrupt government. Now, back then they didn't have these things called "cars," nor did they have the massive federal government we have today. If our government becomes corrupt, a few firearms isn't going to bring them down. But the law also allows the right for citizens who do not own guns to be able to purchase them at a crisis such as what you mentioned. There may be a few firearms now -- but if the need arises -- we all have the right to decide our method of defense. The government is only as powerful as the people allows them to be.
If someone breaks into your home, do you honestly think you're gonna go for your gun? Let's think about that: If you have a family and are responsible, you keep your unloaded gun in a high place and locked in some kind of safe, away from bullets. Now, if someone breaks into your home, and you are lucky enough to hear it happen, do you seriously think you'll have the time (or the courage) to run to your hiding spot, unlock the safe, load the gun and use it? This is completely assuming that you are in a position where you can quietly get to your gun in the first place. Thats your scenario -- and then there is another which is just as plausible. Where you are able to get your gun and defend yourself. Someone already mentioned a similar incident earlier. Just the thought of someone having a gun had the perps running. And you seem to misjudge the power of adrenalin and the courage that comes to a person who has their life and the life of their family on the line when it comes to an intruder.
Outlawing guns will not give criminals a greater access to guns. Japan strictly forbids guns and they have one of the lowest gun crime rates on Earth. You must also consider the size and the culture of the country. It is instilled in them that they are a group culture and that anything they do will bring shame to their group (family). And their justice system over there is so efficient and it is so rare for anyone to contest the death penalty and what not -- that it actually helps lower crime rates (btw western crime rates have dropped too). And yet, this mentality has not stopped people from committing crime or killing themselves (stabbing is very popular there -- as already mentioned in this thread, the most recent one was with that guy who ran over people with his car and then stabbed a bunch more. A perfect example of if someone wants to kill -- they will find a way... gun or no gun.
The truth is, some people are obsessed with guns in this country, and it is a meaningless obsession with no justification. Maybe through your eyes. Through mine, the gun is justified.
Theokhoth
Why? If a parent is irresponsible then thats their problem. Not mine.
It ceases to become their problem when their kid finds the gun and shoots somebody with his new toy.
But the law also allows the right for citizens who do not own guns to be able to purchase them at a crisis such as what you mentioned. There may be a few firearms now -- but if the need arises -- we all have the right to decide our method of defense. The government is only as powerful as the people allows them to be.
It's a useless method of defense that will make no difference and only get more people killed.
Thats your scenario -- and then there is another which is just as plausible. Where you are able to get your gun and defend yourself. Someone already mentioned a similar incident earlier. Just the thought of someone having a gun had the perps running. And you seem to misjudge the power of adrenalin and the courage that comes to a person who has their life and the life of their family on the line when it comes to an intruder.
Exactly; your number one priority is to get your family safe, not run for your guns and try to shoot somebody who could be very dangerous. What if you get hurt? Who will defend your family then? Rather than a gun, run for a cell phone and call 911 like you're supposed to and let the police do their job. Get the family out of the house. The odds of such a scenario ever happening are not exactly great, either.
. You must also consider the size and the culture of the country. It is instilled in them that they are a group culture and that anything they do will bring shame to their group (family). And their justice system over there is so efficient and it is so rare for anyone to contest the death penalty and what not -- that it actually helps lower crime rates (btw western crime rates have dropped too). And yet, this mentality has not stopped people from committing crime or killing themselves (stabbing is very popular there -- as already mentioned in this thread, the most recent one was with that guy who ran over people with his car and then stabbed a bunch more. A perfect example of if someone wants to kill -- they will find a way... gun or no gun.
And we shouldn't be handing them more ways. Yes, they will try to kill with or without guns, but then, a knife isn't quite as dangerous as a gun. Would you rather face a man with a car and knife or a man with a gun?
Sajedene
I think only the Police should have guns and those with a hunting licence and no criminal past behind them.
I don't see the common sense in having a colt magnum stuffed in the pantie drawer where little Timmy can find it just so you can "protect your family and home", if he finds that gun then you can be damn sure he'll either hurt himself or someone else some day with it.
Just because some irresponsible parent left a gun out where a young child can get it, doesn't mean responsible citizens should be penalized. That's like saying if a 13-year-old kid finds his mom's car keys and decides to take it out and gets in a wreck, cars should be banned.It ceases to become their problem when their kid finds the gun and shoots somebody with his new toy.
Theokhoth
[QUOTE="Sajedene"]It ceases to become their problem when their kid finds the gun and shoots somebody with his new toy.
Again, that is the parents who are irresponsible to 1. not educate a child on what he/she shouldnt play with and 2. for not keeping their gun properly kept away. My father introduced me to his revolver when I was very young. He let me watch him clean it every night and taught me that it was not a toy. He kept it in a coded attache case at the highest part of his closet. I knew not to play with it as I had respect for its capability. And I should add, that as soon as I was old enough to hold one, my mom brought me to the shooting range and taught me how to fire a rifle.
It's a useless method of defense that will make no difference and only get more people killed.
Exactly; your number one priority is to get your family safe, not run for your guns and try to shoot somebody who could be very dangerous. What if you get hurt? Who will defend your family then? Rather than a gun, run for a cell phone and call 911 like you're supposed to and let the police do their job. Get the family out of the house. The odds of such a scenario ever happening are not exactly great, either. I can tell you skipped a bunch of posts in this thread. Ofcourse any smart person would dial 911. But what are you going to do, sit there and hide and wait to get raped, robbed, or killed until the police arrive? Have you ever been placed in a situation where you have but a few seconds to decide whether its you or the killer? A dangerous person is not dangerous dead. If I can shoot the bad guy before they shoot me or rape me... then I will welcome that leverage.
And we shouldn't be handing them more ways. Yes, they will try to kill with or without guns, but then, a knife isn't quite as dangerous as a gun. Would you rather face a man with a car and knife or a man with a gun? Give them more ways of what? If you do your research of the history of crime in Japan, you will see that they find their own ways to commit their crimes. I would rather face a guy with a car and a knife if I had gun. I bet all those people he ran over and killed were wishing they had a weapon to defend themselves as he came rushing at them with his knife. Its all about stopping power.
Theokhoth
Yes because only Americans have guns:roll:
Anyway, guns aren't the only weapons in existence that citizens can get a hold of. People can use bare hands to commit murder so all in all deaths will still occur.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment