How many school shootings does it take?

[minerjimmy]

It can get pretty scary. Last year a bullied student had 2 loaded guns on him at my school. Luckily they found them in the morning before he did any harm.

[Lovelydude]

I understand that some people on this forum want to defend guns, and blame it on the persons involved rather than the weapon, but, without easy access or any access at all, young children would have a far more challenging time commiting these massacres.

 

 

 

A sixteen year old with a knife is much less formidable then one with a gun, and people would be willing to risk injury to halt the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a question for all the gun supporters here.

 

 

 

I don't even understand why anyone would support, guns anyway. What purpose do they serve for you?

[warri0r45]

I understand that some people on this forum want to defend guns, and blame it on the persons involved rather than the weapon, but, without easy access or any access at all, young children would have a far more challenging time commiting these massacres.

 

 

 

A sixteen year old with a knife is much less formidable then one with a gun, and people would be willing to risk injury to halt the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a question for all the gun supporters here.

 

 

 

I don't even understand why anyone would support, guns anyway. What purpose do they serve for you?

 

 

 

Protection form people with guns. :wall:

 

 

 

Although they are used for sport, they are mainly flogged as an impliment of security, which, coincidentally, is needed because of people with guns.

 

 

 

LOL. But I'm sure other people have different uses.

[Lovelydude]

With that mentality, doesn't no guns whatsoever seem a better option?

 

 

 

Seriously, almost no-one on this forum actually requires a gun.

[warri0r45]

With that mentality, doesn't no guns whatsoever seem a better option?

 

 

 

Seriously, almost no-one on this forum actually requires a gun.

 

 

 

In my opinion, yes. What I posted above is not my mindset, just one that people with guns may hold. I added in that they needed security because of guns to make a point.

[vilageidiotx]

I understand that some people on this forum want to defend guns, and blame it on the persons involved rather than the weapon, but, without easy access or any access at all, young children would have a far more challenging time commiting these massacres.

 

 

 

A sixteen year old with a knife is much less formidable then one with a gun, and people would be willing to risk injury to halt the situation.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's a question for all the gun supporters here.

 

 

 

I don't even understand why anyone would support, guns anyway. What purpose do they serve for you?

 

 

 

Theres more to gun rights then guns. To be honest, i wouldn't be hurting in a world without guns, and i realise that, but its the prinicple of the thing. Some people like guns, some for hunting, others just for tradition, but there are people of whom like them enough to fight for them, and this in its own should keep people from yelling "ban!" "ban!".

 

 

 

Instead, people have jumped on a bandwagon on its way to a very bad place. Over the last few centurys many people and people-ran goverments have succesfully instituted the current situation, and that is a world that many people are free to live their lives and have their own opinions. But, in our ideal situation we have started to take freedom for granted. Saying "why do we need them anyway?" is dangerous, because why do we need music? Why do we need computers? Why do we need TV?

 

Before you say "these can't be compared to guns" they already have been, and by the people who brought you "gun control". When guns are gone, those are the next things out the window. We have all heard people like Jack Thompson crusading to ban these things, and many of you shrug it off thinking it will never happen. Yet, this is the same thing that has happened to guns, people said ban and most people thought it was crazy, but here we are. We are playing with freedom, and its flying out the door.

 

 

 

I wish not to sound crude, but you can't make a safe world without selling all our freedom. Its impossible. If you want to be safe then you must turn in your rights at the door, you might want this but i don't. Dont play favorites with rights, because its all or nothing.

 

 

 

To be frank, i don't understand why anyone wouldn't support freedom.

[Lovelydude]

How can you debate that validity of freedom without guns? Giving people access to a weapon designed to kill comprimises freedom. I would feel much safer in a world where I knew almost everyone wasn't entitled to a way to kill anyone with little effort and decision making.

 

 

 

I understand your point, but it's like banning smoking. Sure some people enjoy it and there are positive reasons for it being illegal, but the fact is that it's bad, and that life without them (cigarettes or guns) is better then life with them. For the most part, at least.

[vilageidiotx]

How can you debate that validity of freedom without guns? Giving people access to a weapon designed to kill comprimises freedom. I would feel much safer in a world where I knew almost everyone wasn't entitled to a way to kill anyone with little effort and decision making.

 

 

 

I understand your point, but it's like banning smoking. Sure some people enjoy it and there are positive reasons for it being illegal, but the fact is that it's bad, and that life without them (cigarettes or guns) is better then life with them. For the most part, at least.

 

 

 

Because your afraid, we should violate the freedom of other people? With guns, to you they stand for violence and crime, but for some people they stand for history, or a old way of life. Because of your fear you want to take this away from people. What next?

 

 

 

As for cigarettes, your deciding whats better for other people. People should have the right to harm themselves, because it is their body. If people enjoy cigarettes then so be it. Don't feel you should intervene in their freedom, because you wouldn't like it if someone made it illegal to eat your favorite food just because it was fattening.

 

 

 

Im really bad a explaining my cause here, look up libertarianism and

 

you might find somewhere where it is explained much better then what i can do.

[Kill_Thomas9]

the only student related killing I can think of in my city as long as I can remember was a stabbing a few months ago down town. It was between gangs of the two other jr. highs in the city. Now they cancelled all the early days (we usualy have one a month) this year. Already missed 2 this year because of it.

[Lovelydude]

Well, the nature of human beings pretty much makes it a given that violence and crime and stuff will occur. Guns are just giving people a way to commit those crimes more easily. Guns are part of history is a really bad excuse for keeping them legal. Smallpox is part of history, no-one wants it to run rampant again.

 

 

 

Smoking does harm others, and I don't think that's worth debating. I don't care if you smoke on your own time, but smoking in public and stuff applies in the same way as weapons. As long as you're not affecting anyone else's wellbeing it's fine, to an extent. Food is a personal choice, and doesn't affect others based on your actions, however feeding children junk food and similar issues do not justify legal action.

 

 

 

Here comes another analogy, watch out.

 

 

 

If my skating were to affect others in a negative manner, I would be against decriminalisation and I would probably continue to put on my skates every day if it became illegal, but that does not mean it shouldn't be illegal.

 

 

 

Also, directing me towards libertarianist views will not sway my opinion, I understand what you're trying to say anyway.

[vilageidiotx]

Well, the nature of human beings pretty much makes it a given that violence and crime and stuff will occur. Guns are just giving people a way to commit those crimes more easily. Guns are part of history is a really bad excuse for keeping them legal. Smallpox is part of history, no-one wants it to run rampant again.

 

 

 

Smoking does harm others, and I don't think that's worth debating. I don't care if you smoke on your own time, but smoking in public and stuff applies in the same way as weapons. As long as you're not affecting anyone else's wellbeing it's fine, to an extent. Food is a personal choice, and doesn't affect others based on your actions, however feeding children junk food and similar issues do not justify legal action.

 

 

 

Here comes another analogy, watch out.

 

 

 

If my skating were to affect others in a negative manner, I would be against decriminalisation and I would probably continue to put on my skates every day if it became illegal, but that does not mean it shouldn't be illegal.

 

 

 

Also, directing me towards libertarianist views will not sway my opinion, I understand what you're trying to say anyway.

 

 

 

I dont understand what your saying, you would skate even if it did hurt other people as well as was illegal? I don't understand what your trying to get across.

 

 

 

Anyway, its not that guns are part of history that they should be defended, its the fact that some people, a lot of people like guns FOR those reasons, or as a form of recreation. Basiclly, you ban guns out of fear and fear alone, and people lose some freedom. People who want to kill will, and murder will still go on. Actually, in reality, gun crime will remain the same, because people who want one for illegal acts dont care to listen to laws...obviously, and will find a illegal way to get them. Once theres a trade, it will be just as easy to get a gun, you just go to the alley behind the old gun store to buy them. Other people will use knifes or bludgeonsm, and even bombs. All you did is cut a few convienence crimes, which are rare, at the expence of of freedom.

 

 

 

As for smoking, i have to admit i am undecided about public smoking, but i myself have never seen physical proof that second hand smoking exists, and i have known many a smoker. For instance, my grandmother has smoked so much that her lungs dont work well at all, but my grandfather who is right next to her almost constantly, has perfect lungs as well as a perfect heart. Now you multiply that at least 10 and you have my experience.

 

 

 

Im also glad you at least understand me, im not real good at explaining my cause.

[Lovelydude]

Well, the nature of human beings pretty much makes it a given that violence and crime and stuff will occur. Guns are just giving people a way to commit those crimes more easily. Guns are part of history is a really bad excuse for keeping them legal. Smallpox is part of history, no-one wants it to run rampant again.

 

 

 

Smoking does harm others, and I don't think that's worth debating. I don't care if you smoke on your own time, but smoking in public and stuff applies in the same way as weapons. As long as you're not affecting anyone else's wellbeing it's fine, to an extent. Food is a personal choice, and doesn't affect others based on your actions, however feeding children junk food and similar issues do not justify legal action.

 

 

 

Here comes another analogy, watch out.

 

 

 

If my skating were to affect others in a negative manner, I would be against decriminalisation and I would probably continue to put on my skates every day if it became illegal, but that does not mean it shouldn't be illegal.

 

 

 

Also, directing me towards libertarianist views will not sway my opinion, I understand what you're trying to say anyway.

 

 

 

I dont understand what your saying, you would skate even if it did hurt other people as well as was illegal? I don't understand what your trying to get across. Just sympathising on the gun supporters part. I kind of understand now that they would be again prohibition of firearms, considering that they can be used and owned without negative effects.

 

 

 

Anyway, its not that guns are part of history that they should be defended, its the fact that some people, a lot of people like guns FOR those reasons, or as a form of recreation. Basiclly, you ban guns out of fear and fear alone, and people lose some freedom. People who want to kill will, and murder will still go on. Actually, in reality, gun crime will remain the same, because people who want one for illegal acts dont care to listen to laws...obviously, and will find a illegal way to get them. Once theres a trade, it will be just as easy to get a gun, you just go to the alley behind the old gun store to buy them. Other people will use knifes or bludgeonsm, and even bombs. All you did is cut a few convienence crimes, which are rare, at the expence of of freedom. More then a few crimes I'd say. Guns allow you to kill someone with no time for reasoning. If you were to make a bomb to kill someone, you would not fulfill the crime if the reason for murder was purely anger related, and you were a rational thinking person. Though I agree it wouldn't make a huge difference, you can't say small improvements are not important, and do not warrant things like making guns illegal.

 

 

 

As for smoking, i have to admit i am undecided about public smoking, but i myself have never seen physical proof that second hand smoking exists, and i have known many a smoker. For instance, my grandmother has smoked so much that her lungs dont work well at all, but my grandfather who is right next to her almost constantly, has perfect lungs as well as a perfect heart. Now you multiply that at least 10 and you have my experience.To be fair, I'm going to have to agree with the medical and scientific professionals on this one. It's not hard to believe smoking is harmful to others, so why question it when the potential is obvious, even if not true.

 

 

 

Im also glad you at least understand me, im not real good at explaining my cause.You explain well enough.

[vilageidiotx]

Ok, fair enough. Have a good day :)

[ktmcf121]

 

Here's a question for all the gun supporters here.

 

 

 

I don't even understand why anyone would support, guns anyway. What purpose do they serve for you?

 

 

 

i've said this over and over again, but i'll say it again. i own several guns. most of them get used for sport shooting, a few for hunting.

 

 

 

i've never had to use my guns for defence, but if the time ever comes, i would do so without hesitation.

 

 

 

say, hypothetically, that they outlaw guns, and baseball bats become the preferred weapon of crime. what's next, outlawing baseball? then tennis rackets? then spoons? what? where does it end? you outlaw guns and set a precedent for over-riding human liberties, and the next thing you know, common household objects, or even VIDEO GAMES :ohnoes: would be outlawed. god forbid.

 

 

 

you can argue all you want that hunting is no longer necessary in today's society, but i disagree. i personally hunt for food, and because i'm in college, having a few deer in the freezer eases my food expenses for the year. other people hunt for tradition, or even sport, and the majority of hunters have never been in a firearm related accident.