Gun Control

[obfuscator]

And when they can't? Justice can't be served by anyone?

Not when it's contrary to the principles of justice itself, no.

 

Faith in the judicial system goes a long way in making it effective.

 

 

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

I disagree. Two people are not an acceptable sample to make a generalization from a statistical point of view. You might also apply the scenario to other school shootings, but there's one common factor between nearly all of the shooters: Most of them had mental illnesses, and something, somewhere was a mere catalyst. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

 

And when we live in a society where these people can easily get guns, this stuff happens. With stricter controls, this could be somewhat averted.

 

For example; compare the number of school shootings in the states to the number of shootings in Canada or England.

[Pirate_Felix]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

I disagree. Two people are not an acceptable sample to make a generalization from a statistical point of view. You might also apply the scenario to other school shootings, but there's one common factor between nearly all of the shooters: Most of them had mental illnesses, and something, somewhere was a mere catalyst. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Still let me say one thing, the guns that are sold in american stores are not made for killing deer.

 

"Guns dont kill people, I DOO AHAAAHAHAH" (Okay if anyone got that quote ILY)

[obfuscator]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

I disagree. Two people are not an acceptable sample to make a generalization from a statistical point of view. You might also apply the scenario to other school shootings, but there's one common factor between nearly all of the shooters: Most of them had mental illnesses, and something, somewhere was a mere catalyst. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Still let me say one thing, the guns that are sold in american stores are not made for killing deer.

 

"Guns dont kill people, I DOO AHAAAHAHAH" (Okay if anyone got that quote ILY)

I'm bad...like the movie attack of the clones!

 

OT: They're actually voting within a week to scrap the gun registry in Canada. I'll be curious to see how it turns out.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/14/ndp-long-gun-registry-vote.html

[Pirate_Felix]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

I disagree. Two people are not an acceptable sample to make a generalization from a statistical point of view. You might also apply the scenario to other school shootings, but there's one common factor between nearly all of the shooters: Most of them had mental illnesses, and something, somewhere was a mere catalyst. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Still let me say one thing, the guns that are sold in american stores are not made for killing deer.

 

"Guns dont kill people, I DOO AHAAAHAHAH" (Okay if anyone got that quote ILY)

I'm bad...like the movie attack of the clones!

 

OT: They're actually voting within a week to scrap the gun registry in Canada. I'll be curious to see how it turns out.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/09/14/ndp-long-gun-registry-vote.html

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warcraft#Rifleman

 

Btw i love canada forever if it passes. Though i think to a certain degree it should be available for canada cause you know bears and stuff.

[Kriegsmier]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

 

Why? Because a stupid parent didn't lock their gun safe and the kids got the guns?

[Giordano]

And when they can't? Justice can't be served by anyone?

Not when it's contrary to the principles of justice itself, no.

 

Faith in the judicial system goes a long way in making it effective.

So justice for you can only be issued with "legal" consent? What defines legality? Why can't first-hand experienced people do justice but third-parties can.

 

It's hard to have faith in a skewed, self-centered system that can never be perfect. Common sense from the legal system can easily fill in those gaps.

 

For example; compare the number of school shootings in the states to the number of shootings in Canada or England.

Also compare the sheer number of schools in England to number of schools in America.

 

It's not like a driver crashes into a elementary school classroom we'll start banning cars.

 

Plus if someone had a gun in the school, he/she could of possibility stopped the shooter: trying to take control of the situation before third-party men in standard-issued uniforms come in 15 minutes later.

[obfuscator]

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Warcraft#Rifleman

 

Btw i love canada forever if it passes. Though i think to a certain degree it should be available for canada cause you know bears and stuff.

 

Ahh, I thought you meant this.

 

 

 

 

So justice for you can only be issued with "legal" consent? What defines legality? Why can't first-hand experienced people do justice but third-parties can.

 

It's hard to have faith in a skewed, self-centered system that can never be perfect. Common sense from the legal system can easily fill in those gaps.

 

Because that's the way society functions - we use a justice system that doesn't rely on spur of the moment impulse and gives everyone a fair trial.

 

Also compare the sheer number of schools in England to number of schools in America.

 

It's not like a driver crashes into a elementary school classroom we'll start banning cars.

 

Plus if someone had a gun in the school, he/she could of possibility stopped the shooter: trying to take control of the situation before third-party men in standard-issued uniforms come in 15 minutes later.

 

You'd have to look at per capita - I don't have stats on hand but I doubt they're anything but higher in America.

Your last sentence makes no sense - if this was the case why has it never happened?

[Pirate_Felix]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

 

Why? Because a stupid parent didn't lock their gun safe and the kids got the guns?

More likely because two kids bought ammo at the wall mart and bought a gun legally and then shot 12 students and one teacher.

But your explanation is probably more likely!

[Alg]

More likely because two kids bought ammo at the wall mart and bought a gun legally and then shot 12 students and one teacher.

But your explanation is probably more likely!

The bullying that both went through, with one gunman being antisocial (This definition) while the the other was suicidal clearly had nothing to do with it.

[Kriegsmier]

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

 

Why? Because a stupid parent didn't lock their gun safe and the kids got the guns?

More likely because two kids bought ammo at the wall mart and bought a gun legally and then shot 12 students and one teacher.

But your explanation is probably more likely!

 

No. They were both minors (as far as handgun laws go), and the buying or acquiring of the guns was illegal any way you turn it.

[Pirate_Felix]

More likely because two kids bought ammo at the wall mart and bought a gun legally and then shot 12 students and one teacher.

But your explanation is probably more likely!

The bullying that both went through, with one gunman being antisocial (This definition) while the the other was suicidal clearly had nothing to do with it.

You aren't born suicidal.

 

Slightly oxymoronic topic title, when guns come into play stuff mostly go out of control.

 

And i think it shouldve went illegal during the columbine high school thing.

 

Why? Because a stupid parent didn't lock their gun safe and the kids got the guns?

More likely because two kids bought ammo at the wall mart and bought a gun legally and then shot 12 students and one teacher.

But your explanation is probably more likely!

 

No. They were both minors (as far as handgun laws go), and the buying or acquiring of the guns was illegal any way you turn it.

No they got at least the ammo legally and i think the guns too, not sure about that.

[Alg]

More likely because two kids bought ammo at the wall mart and bought a gun legally and then shot 12 students and one teacher.

But your explanation is probably more likely!

The bullying that both went through, with one gunman being antisocial (This definition) while the the other was suicidal clearly had nothing to do with it.

You aren't born suicidal.

Not sure where you're going with that.

[Zierro]

What ignores human dignity more - the theft of a few dollars, or the taking of a life? You tell me.

 

If you were to kill someone over money and nothing more, that is terribly wrong. But like I said, a robber will most likely try to take your money by force if you refuse to give it peacefully. If they do engage in violence, a gun would be appropriate for the situation. If warning them you mean business by pointing a gun at them isn't enough to keep them from attacking you, your safest bet would be to pull the trigger. And if you were to do that, you've just made the world a better place for the innocent - nothing wrong about that.

 

My great-grandmother, she was like 80 at the time, entered a bank and made a withdrawal, had $20 in her hand, the bank was robbed, a robber pushed her onto the ground breaking her arm and took the money. That man deserves punishment because he breached the line of moral dignity. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's $20 short. It's about establishing a precedent of what should happen to you if you were to breach that line. Call it a scare tactic if you must, but to me it sounds like the most successful method of keeping people in line. And yes, it's a shame that it has to come to that but it's the lesser of two evils - in my personal opinion, it ignores human dignity more to let people like this get off the hook than to punish them.

[Furah]

I think our laws down here are good. I don't know them, as I've only ever seen guns at mate's places and don't plan to get one or use one any time soon, but yeah. Nothing too horrible's happened (recently at least :s)

You must live in a great area, most shootings no longer make the paper in my region. They try telling us that gun control would stop the killings, and all I see is easy targets for the criminals.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I personally feel that any weapons of defense should only be reserved for the army and police. Other than guns for hunting, collecting and shooting on a range for sport, I don't think civilians should have guns. Obivously I'll be disagreed with and told its for self-defense purposes, but its for that reason as well as to why there are people who illegally possess guns. The second amendment was formulated in a time when America was mostly frontier and there wasn't really a well developed police/army force. Times change, as should laws.

 

Off-topic: I don't understand people's obsession with exacting "justice". Exacting justice will not undone the effects of an injustice, it will not bring the dead back or anything of the short and the "eye for an eye" mindset we have really doesn't work because when people are arrested in America they don't have themselves made an example of (i.e. like a public execution because that would be "barbaric" and yet there's such a strong desire for revenge) and than they get a free room, food, exercise time, television and education. So jailing someone is not a scare tactic, it is decently nice if you have nothing as you receive a lot of free aid and you have the possibility of obtaining contacts. This horrible failure of a system is because it is a fusion of rehabilitating criminals and punishing them, so we lie to ourselves by saying they're being punished while they are pampered without any rehabilitative measures.

[Zierro]

This horrible failure of a system is because it is a fusion of rehabilitating criminals and punishing them, so we lie to ourselves by saying they're being punished while they are pampered without any rehabilitative measures.

 

Most people really don't want to be in jail. But I will agree that there are much better methods of justice than throwing a bunch of wrong-doers in a building to think about what they've done.

 

As for exacting justice, that is impossible, but that's no reason to at least try making things the best they can realistically be. It's also not to "undo injustices" but rather to prevent potential injustices and make a better tomorrow.

[Furah]

I do believe someone mentioned people not needing assault rifles (which doesn't always mean automatic weapons) but I beg to differ. There are many sports in which these firearms are required:

Many hunters use these firearms

Three-gun target matches

Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events

DCM/CMP competitions

Bodyguard simulations

 

Personal protection is fine, but let's leave the firearms to the cops who are really qualified to use them. If you feel the need to carry a firearm for personal protection then I'd say you're likely to use it.

The US courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. Main case in hand is Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department where 3 roommates were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. FOURTEEN GODDAMN HOURS.

 

Gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed.

 

That is an actual quote from Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief.

[Alg]

Are there any numbers for violent crime with other weapons in areas with restricted guns? Just out of curiosity... I've been wondering if banning guns would just lead people to use other weapons.

[Kriegsmier]

I personally feel that any weapons of defense should only be reserved for the army and police. Other than guns for hunting, collecting and shooting on a range for sport, I don't think civilians should have guns. Obivously I'll be disagreed with and told its for self-defense purposes, but its for that reason as well as to why there are people who illegally possess guns. The second amendment was formulated in a time when America was mostly frontier and there wasn't really a well developed police/army force. Times change, as should laws.

 

Off-topic: I don't understand people's obsession with exacting "justice". Exacting justice will not undone the effects of an injustice, it will not bring the dead back or anything of the short and the "eye for an eye" mindset we have really doesn't work because when people are arrested in America they don't have themselves made an example of (i.e. like a public execution because that would be "barbaric" and yet there's such a strong desire for revenge) and than they get a free room, food, exercise time, television and education. So jailing someone is not a scare tactic, it is decently nice if you have nothing as you receive a lot of free aid and you have the possibility of obtaining contacts. This horrible failure of a system is because it is a fusion of rehabilitating criminals and punishing them, so we lie to ourselves by saying they're being punished while they are pampered without any rehabilitative measures.

 

Whos going to protect you in your own house if something arises? The police? How far away are they? By the time they get dispatched and arrive on scene it could EASILY be to late. Castle Doctrine baby, gotta love it.

 

I do believe someone mentioned people not needing assault rifles (which doesn't always mean automatic weapons) but I beg to differ. There are many sports in which these firearms are required:

Many hunters use these firearms

Three-gun target matches

Camp Perry competitions, especially the Service Rifle events

DCM/CMP competitions

Bodyguard simulations

 

Personal protection is fine, but let's leave the firearms to the cops who are really qualified to use them. If you feel the need to carry a firearm for personal protection then I'd say you're likely to use it.

The US courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. Main case in hand is Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department where 3 roommates were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. FOURTEEN GODDAMN HOURS.

 

Gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed.

 

That is an actual quote from Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief.

 

Eventually i'll enter the CMP and Camp Perry matches, been itching to shoot my M1 Garands more. Glad someone else knows about these.

[Giordano]

Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

This is the golden jewel. Ok game over, ciao, nobody should ever promote gun control anymore.

[paul191600]

Are there any numbers for violent crime with other weapons in areas with restricted guns? Just out of curiosity... I've been wondering if banning guns would just lead people to use other weapons.

Well, considering that criminals could give less of a [cabbage] about gun laws, I doubt it will change much. I'm sure that stabbing cases will rise for the small timers though. Thing is, there are many things that criminals could use as a weapon. Ice picks, axes, knives, screwdrivers, almost anything that a common civilian could get their hands on.

[Furah]

Are there any numbers for violent crime with other weapons in areas with restricted guns? Just out of curiosity... I've been wondering if banning guns would just lead people to use other weapons.

In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the US, there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the US could be eliminated, they would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the US, the combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also.

[Racheya]

The number of suicides in Japan has nothing to do with the rate of crime, it's the culture. I fail to see what it has to do with gun control laws, not everyone there is killing themselves with a gun.

[Giordano]

You mean they still do the sword stab in their gut and slice across?!

[I_am_Geed]

Are there any numbers for violent crime with other weapons in areas with restricted guns? Just out of curiosity... I've been wondering if banning guns would just lead people to use other weapons.

 

Theres already enough stabbings.... I dont want to imagine what else people would resort to.