It's about damn time.

Highlighted: NO YOU ARE NOT! Take away guns and you simply take away one weapon. There are COUNTLESS other weapons that can be used, crossbows, longbows, swords, maces, daggers, darts, blowguns, cannon, rockets, gauntlets, fists, etc. ad endless nauseaum. And even if you weren't to take away all guns, you still have to deal with an undefeatable black market for the weapons.

Because I do not see the reason to go and fight for something I see as a lost cause. The "war on terror", for instance, is a lost cause because you cannot uproot a terrorist organization by brute force. Those mothers would probably demand my head on a platter, but that doesn't stop me from being right. Warfare is, ultimately and unfortunately, the final solution of any and all human beings, be it as simple as punching out the offender or detonating a nuclear weapon in the enemy's capitol. I don't like it, but I accept violence as being the final solution for all of man's problems. We, normally, take every step available to avoid it and only use violence as a last resort. There are notable exceptions, but generally speaking that is the way.

tycoonmike

the red wouldn't exist without the help of guns. Fighting against guns is not a lost cause, Countries like Canada and parts of Europe have been able to keep a stable control on guns. Your not right not in the least bit. War, Fighting violence...yeah its in our blood and theres no chance of world peace but there are ways to water this problem down. Putting guns in the hands of teachers is not a positive solution to school shootings. Detectors, tighter security and self defense, for the teachers can be though! I want you to step foot on a battle field...and tell me thats the right way to solve a problem. I can tell by the way you talk you have never experienced any sort of violence whether it be by fist or gun...Im sure the extent of your knowledge goes to TV books and video games. Trust me, if you experienced any tragedy that a gun or war has caused you wouldn't speak like this!

[QUOTE="DeadMann420"]

-Correct me if I'm wrong but SWAT =/= regular everyday Police

-See my older post on that

-Oh yes a document created in 1787 should still retain the same authority it did during a time you were still afraid of being re colonized by Britain. /sarcasm

Welcome to the 20th century friend

Typical fear ruled ideologies … Jesus I wonder how far we have really come when people feel the need weapons for safety.

I think you fail to understand a majority of rifles in Canada are 20 caliber… you can hardly HURT a human by shooting them with a 20 caliber.

Also scope + hunting rifle hardly = fully functional long range sniper rifle.

Also a child in Africa can kill numerous amounts of people with an AK. Not so easy to do the same with a modified rifle (what with wind, bullet trajectory ETC)

tycoonmike

I will grant you that you don't necessarily see SWAT members walking down the street on routine patrols, but the fact is that SWAT is a part of the police force for most American towns and cities.

You're damn right it should. If you haven't noticed, the Constitution is still (supposedly, but that's another tale for another time) the supreme law of the land. And frankly, I am afraid of all government types. I do not trust an oligarchy, which is what almost all governments are. Government limits the freedom of the people by forcing them to choose, or not to choose, someone to make decisions for them.

I doubt that. I'd be willing to bet a skilled marksman could harm, or even kill, someone with a properly placed shot.

And such factors don't affect the AK?

You're damn right it should. If you haven't noticed, the Constitution is still (supposedly, but that's another tale for another time) the supreme law of the land.

LOL! The supreme law of the land? Give me a break! The Constitution has been cherry picked beyond recognition. I agree the constitution is a VERY important document FOR IT'S TIME but times change… I think its about time for a new Constitution one made with the current condition of things within mind.

And frankly, I am afraid of all government types. I do not trust an oligarchy, which is what almost all governments are. Government limits the freedom of the people by forcing them to choose, or not to choose, someone to make decisions for them.

BUDDY you live in a diplomatic contrary, go live under a government like china then come back here and QQ about you limited freedoms… JESUS!

I doubt that. I'd be willing to bet a skilled marksman could harm, or even kill, someone with a properly placed shot.

You bet wrong,
with the amount of kinetic energy produced by most commercial rifles in Canada so low, would be hard to pierce the skin let alone kill someone with a few shots.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Highlighted: NO YOU ARE NOT! Take away guns and you simply take away one weapon. There are COUNTLESS other weapons that can be used, crossbows, longbows, swords, maces, daggers, darts, blowguns, cannon, rockets, gauntlets, fists, etc. ad endless nauseaum. And even if you weren't to take away all guns, you still have to deal with an undefeatable black market for the weapons.

Because I do not see the reason to go and fight for something I see as a lost cause. The "war on terror", for instance, is a lost cause because you cannot uproot a terrorist organization by brute force. Those mothers would probably demand my head on a platter, but that doesn't stop me from being right. Warfare is, ultimately and unfortunately, the final solution of any and all human beings, be it as simple as punching out the offender or detonating a nuclear weapon in the enemy's capitol. I don't like it, but I accept violence as being the final solution for all of man's problems. We, normally, take every step available to avoid it and only use violence as a last resort. There are notable exceptions, but generally speaking that is the way.

sparkypants

the red wouldn't exist without the help of guns. Fighting against guns is not a lost cause, Countries like Canada and parts of Europe have been able to keep a stable control on guns. Your not right not in the least bit. War, Fighting violence...yeah its in our blood and theres no chance of world peace but there are ways to water this problem down. Putting guns in the hands of teachers is not a positive solution to school shootings. Detectors, tighter security and self defense, for the teachers can be though! I want you to step foot on a battle field...and tell me thats the right way to solve a problem. I can tell by the way you talk you have never experienced any sort of violence whether it be by fist or gun...Im sure the extent of your knowledge goes to TV books and video games. Trust me, if you experienced any tragedy that a gun or war has caused you wouldn't speak like this!

When did I ever say I supported the guns being in the hands of the teachers idea?

Your knowledge of weaponry isn't exactly up to date. The crossbow has existed for about 2000 years before the invention of firearms by the Chinese. Indeed, it has been known by many names, ballista and scorpion being the two most familiar. Hell, the Chinese even invented a sort of semi-automatic crossbow, the Chu-ko-nu. Blowguns have existed, similarly, for thousands of years because it doesn't require gunpowder. Simply a poison tipped dart, a long tube that the dart can fit in, and a strong puff of air, and you can be taking your foes down in relative silence. Cannon and rockets wouldn't exist, I will grant you that, but only if you can get rid of the gunpowder stores and the items that make crude gunpowder (saltpeter, sulfur, and charcoal).

And had I experienced such tragedy, I would be made distraught, yes. Does that mean I would demand the destruction of all guns? Absolutely not. I can't imagine what warfare is truly like, but I can imagine that it would be far worse if we still used swords, maces, and arrows as our primary weapons.

LOL! The supreme law of the land? Give me a break! The Constitution has been cherry picked beyond recognition. I agree the constitution is a VERY important document FOR IT'S TIME but times change… I think its about time for a new Constitution one made with the current condition of things within mind.

BUDDY you live in a diplomatic contrary, go live under a government like china then come back here and QQ about you limited freedoms… JESUS!

You bet wrong,
with the amount of kinetic energy produced by most commercial rifles in Canada so low, would be hard to pierce the skin let alone kill someone with a few shots.

Umm, this is a trick question right?
I don't know how I can make this more obvious for you…

it is HARD to "snipe" (especially with a gun not made for snipeing).

it is easy to hold down a trigger and spray.

GET IT?

Lastly you do have a point about human nature we do seem to have a violent side. But your position is not absolute; this very argument has been discussed time and time over so lets let it go.

Personally, while I will agree humans have a dark nature I would disagree that "war" is part of what makes us human.
DeadMann420

Yes, let us completely rewrite our Constitution. There wouldn't be, nor will there ever be, an easier way to cause another Civil War than would there be to rewrite it. Like it or not, our Constitution is law. We have lived by it for 221 years and it has served us well. I see no reason to change it completely. Maybe amend it, but not to completely change it.

Yes, this country is diplomatic. If the United States is so "diplomatic" then why do we claim ourselves to be the leaders of the free world and then torture POWs? If we are so "diplomatic" why does the government have the right to tap someone's phone with no legal warrant nor any reason other than "we fear that so-and-so may be part of a terrorist organization?" If we are so "diplomatic" then why is it that the people no longer, as a whole, care about the state of the government enough to actually vote on the issues rather than who has the best face for television? NO government is diplomatic, be it a democracy or a despotism, because it only looks out for itself and damn the common man.

OK, then give me either a measurement for the kinetic energy of a .20 caliber bullet, or a website where I could find such a measurement, as well as the measurement for the kinetic energy to break the skin.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult, I'm saying that, for a properly trained marksman, it would be easy to pick off targets, just as easy as it would be for the same marksman to open up with an M16 in a crowded town square. The difference being that the marksman with the rifle wouldn't be as easily seen as would be the marksman in the town square. I'm not debating whether or not a kid could kill many people by unloading with an automatic weapon, I'm debating whether or not rifles, when deployed properly, can kill just as many people as could an automatic weapon.