RE: Anotther school shooting.

RE: Anotther school shooting. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

jlf1961 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 3:31:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 On the argument that guns kill people: [image]local://upfiles/622970/A78820766E0D4E8AB0FF13E1B3E28656.jpg[/image] An by your argument we should allow anyone with the cash to obtain nuclear weapons. Since a nuclear weapon by itself can not kill anyone either. Dude, have you ever checked what is *legal* to own? Let me give you a few examples: With proper ATF registration, and made before 1986. 1) GE Minigun, ROF 6000 to 7000 rounds per minute. 2) Anti tank rifle, cal. 20 mm, capable of punching through four inches armor plate. 3) Anti tank gun, aka cannon. Caliber up to 76mm 5) Any fully automatic weapon you so desire, if it was made before 1986, or the conversion parts were made before 1986. Without permits 50 caliber sniper rifle, punches through 1 inch steel plate or brick walls like a knife through butter. And you want to make jokes about buying a nuke? The simple fact that the argument "guns kill people" is flawed. The gun in and of itself is nothing more than a chunk of metal, plastic and in some cases wood. Loaded or unloaded, the gun cannot kill someone just by its existence. How many guns did Timothy McViegh use? How many rounds of ammo? Or the unabomber? Or the Boston Strangler? Ted Bundy? The zodiac used a gun twice, but his preferred method was a knife. Then you have the hillside stranglers. My point is that if you want to kill a lot of people you do not necessarily need a gun to do it. But hey, believe what you want.

Wendel27 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 3:37:36 PM)
No you don't neccessarily need a firearm. However a firearm is far easier to use both psychologically and physically to just about any of the readily available, viable, alternatives. There's a reason modern armies are equpped with Battle Rifles as opposed to, say, baseball bats. Or Samurai swords. Or screwdrivers.

jlf1961 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 4:17:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 No you don't neccessarily need a firearm. However a firearm is far easier to use both psychologically and physically to just about any of the readily available, viable, alternatives. There's a reason modern armies are equpped with Battle Rifles as opposed to, say, baseball bats. Or Samurai swords. Or screwdrivers. Psychologically? Really? So all the vets coming back with PTSD is not from combat but not having pudding with their MRE's? No weapon is psychologically easier to use, a person that kills in cold blood does so for pleasure, some sort of gratification, psychologically speaking, he/she is no longer capable of seeing others as anything more than prey. Just my opinion, but a normal person just does not go out and kill a mass of people on a lark.

Wendel27 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 4:28:03 PM)
''No weapon is psychologically easier to use'' That's not correct Jlf. Studies on PTSD show that as one becomes further removed from the physical act of killing it becomes easier psychologically. Note that is not the same as saying it is easy. thus directing drones is easier than firing artillery. Which in turn is easier than firing a rifle which is easier than bayonetting someone to death. For the purposes of this discussion people who are already seriously ill are, as you rightly point out, already psychologically disturbed. That doesn't neccessarily equate to sociapathy and doesn't preclude them from finding it easier to kill someone from a distance then at extremely close ranges where there victims are more humanised. Whatr is undoubted is that in these cases of mass killings using a firearm is physically far easier than, for example, carrying out their attacks with a length of lead pipe.

PeonForHer -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 4:56:04 PM)
quote: No weapon is psychologically easier to use Oh come on, JLF. You must know that's not true. From WW2 onwards - at least - it's been recognised that those soldiers who can kill with, say, knives are much rarer than those who can kill with rifles or bombs. The argument of "If he couldn't have killed with a gun, he'd have found another way" is utter crap. That's surely been proven enough times even for the most cretinously hardened of gun-nutters - which you are not.

jlf1961 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 5:25:08 PM)
I am speaking from the experience as a combat vet, and sniper to boot. Considering that school shootings are not done from a distance, but at a range of less than thirty feet, that is very personal, and the shooter is making a statement. And as I have pointed out, a normal person does not go out and shoot people on a lark. A kid that does it as in the this case or most school shootings, has a reason. I will also point out that IF the weapon had been properly secured, he would never have gotten it in the first place. How many states or is there a Federal law that states if your weapon is used in a crime you are also criminally accountable? I would suggest as an accessory at the very least. But people want to ban guns, when most of the gun owners in the US take measures to prevent unauthorized use. Personally, if I really wanted a body count, I would use explosives or some other WMD. Why do you think that line commanders have this nice little option of calling in arty or air support?

Wendel27 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 5:38:36 PM)
I didn't dispute that killing someone at close range was personal. I just pointed out that killing someone with a firearm has been shown, in mumerous studies, to be psychologically easier than using melee weapojs. Which in turn are easier than using one's bare hands. People commiting these acts do so for a variety of reasons. Take for example someone like McVeigh. If rather than detonating a truck bomb he had had to strnagle 168 people it's possible that he would not have had the stomach for it. Violent, angry, paranoid, deeply misguided but not, neccessarily, a sociopath. I agree that weapons should be properly secured with sever penalties for failure to comply. I'd also point out that there is less inherent danger in failing to secure a cricket bat. It is not unreasonable to point out that a firearm is a dangerous weapon designed to kill from range. Accepting that doesn't mean therefore all guns need to be banned but it's a more reasonable standpoint to begin with than an semi automatic pistol is no more more deadly than a rock.

joether -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 6:43:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Dude, have you ever checked what is *legal* to own? Let me give you a few examples: With proper ATF registration, and made before 1986. 1) GE Minigun, ROF 6000 to 7000 rounds per minute. 2) Anti tank rifle, cal. 20 mm, capable of punching through four inches armor plate. 3) Anti tank gun, aka cannon. Caliber up to 76mm 5) Any fully automatic weapon you so desire, if it was made before 1986, or the conversion parts were made before 1986. How often have these been used at school shootings? Or just muggings? You even stated it yourself: "with proper....REGULATION....". Those are 'arms' in the same way as a morning star, crossbow, M-249, or 100 megaton intercontinental ballistic missile, are all 'arms'. When there exists good regulations with good enforcement, those items generally do not show up being used in crimes that often. Chicago, IL has one of the strictest gun controls in the country, right? Yet people die from firearms. Now why is that? The firearms being used didn't originate from those owning permits within Chicago but from outside of it. Texas has the same problem, yet how much of those firearms collected after shootings originate from someone in Chicago? That is as rare of a chance as Sarah Palin has in winning the Nobel Prize for literature! When we have a system that allows firearms to be so freely exchanged, are you seriously surprised by firearm violence? I'm just saying that when there has been good regulation and good enforcement of those regulations, firearm accidents and murders are greatly lessen. The 2nd amendment has been so completely blown out of rational sense over the years. That people ignore the first half of it as, 'it doesn't apply to them', and then corrupt the second half to mean 'what ever the hell they want'. An you are expecting nothing bad to come of this mentality? My view is not to revoke firearm ownership. That would be the wrong way of going about it. Instead if someone wishes to have a firearm that the government can not 'take away' they are to belong to "a well regulated militia..." in their local area. In Colonial New England that means every other Sunday on the town grounds (drilling, marching, target practice) rain or shine. An that the militia leaders could make unannounced visits to your house to see that your firearm for your militia duties is kept up to regulation. I would not be opposed if you wanted other guns, but they would not have the protection of the 2nd amendment on them since they are not used in your militia duties (the regulations would spell out in exact terms which arms are used and not used). quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Without permits 50 caliber sniper rifle, punches through 1 inch steel plate or brick walls like a knife through butter. Last I checked, its the ammunition that "...punches..." through the steel plate, NOT, the firearm itself. I suppose if your Adeptus Astartes you can fairly say you could punch the whole rifle through a steel plate as well.... Should society regulate such a weapon into civilian hands? Good question. Not easy to answer. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And you want to make jokes about buying a nuke? It was rather serious. Is that not how we should approach firearms as well? Taking the issue seriously? The phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" sounds 'ok' until the following sentence is added "Then why do we allow people to have guns?". You know as well as me that if nuclear arms were NOT stiflingly-heavily regulated, Planet Earth would look much different right now than it does. So the question is, why should we be surprised when firearms are as easy to obtain as bicycles or big TV sets, and then used for many horrible purposes? More importantly, how do we regulate firearms to NOT be ill used, but still allow Americans to obtain, own, and use them? That is a very tough question to answer. One that has been attempted thousands of times so far. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The simple fact that the argument "guns kill people" is flawed. The gun in and of itself is nothing more than a chunk of metal, plastic and in some cases wood. Loaded or unloaded, the gun cannot kill someone just by its existence. How does the bullet go from where your standing to inside someone's chest? Why did the armies of the world switch from swords to firearms as the primary tool for their infantry to wage war? The primary purpose of firearms is to kill. They have many secondary uses (self defense, collecting, target shooting, hunting, etc.). quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 How many guns did Timothy McViegh use? How many rounds of ammo? Given that he was in the US Military, I would suspect plenty. Afterward, part of the Militia Movement. I would suspect again that he used quite a number of firearms and fired many thousands of rounds. Your point? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Or the unabomber? Last I checked, 'blowing someone up' with a bomb is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Fashioning a bomb is ALREADY ILLEGAL. Transporting the bomb towards a target is ALREADY ILLEGAL. What's your point? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Ted Bundy? The zodiac used a gun twice, but his preferred method was a knife. Then you have the hillside stranglers. Do you realize the more you head towards 'irrational justification' kills any real serious arguments you might make going forward? Do you want all the firearms to be ban from civilian control? If 'no', then making silly or irrational arguments does not help you. I have no problem with someone owning a firearm if it'll be handled in a lawful and safe fashion. That implies the firearm owner is not mentally or emotionally compromised (i.e. mental or emotional illness, or someone within their household). I seem to recall the murder of Sandy Hook last year had some serious mental and emotional problems. Yet his mom did not, and could obtain the very firearms the son used in the slaughter. I can understand wanting to give a son and daughter as normal of a childhood as possible; but there does exist wisdom and foolishness on how to go about it. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 My point is that if you want to kill a lot of people you do not necessarily need a gun to do it. No, but what is the most efficient weapon, easily obtainable, easy to carry, easy to operate, and can kill a huge number in a very short time period? My point is that banning firearms is not the direction to head in. Nor is doing nothing about it. The answer is not going to be a silver bullet. Nor will it be found by an easy process. Its an answer that some in this country on all sides of this debate will blast as 'going overboard/not going far enough'. That leaves the majority of Americans finding that 'common ground' and understanding they'll have to live with the fallout that follows as time marches on.

jlf1961 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 6:55:01 PM)
joether Ease of operation and able to kill a lot of people in a short period of time? McVeigh had that one, and unfortunately, the US DoD published manuals on making improvised explosives are available at just about any survivalist gear website, military surplus website, or military bookstores. Hell fill a five gallon metal bucket with black powder and ball bearings, and black powder is easy to purchase at any gun shop.

joether -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 7:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Considering that school shootings are not done from a distance, but at a range of less than thirty feet, that is very personal, and the shooter is making a statement. An what events let up to that moment of a statement? One of them is the easily obtainable firearm. Is the firearm completely blamable? No. But it plays a serious role in the 'final act' of the story. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And as I have pointed out, a normal person does not go out and shoot people on a lark. A kid that does it as in the this case or most school shootings, has a reason. I will also point out that IF the weapon had been properly secured, he would never have gotten it in the first place. Yes only 'non-normal' people kill others is the most silly argument on this thread. Believe it or not, until you are diagnosis by someone with medical/psychological training and credentials of being mentally or emotionally compromised....YOU ARE NORMAL. You might want to give this a serious read. Not just that webpage, which gives a very brief overview of the document, but the document itself (click on the image of the document). I would love to agree with the properly secured part. But yet, kids can be a pretty intelligent lot when they are motivated to action. Each gun locker can be easily compromised thanks to the internet. Imagine the following on some website "Hey, I recently got a ACME-gun safe and I accidently broken the lock when I tried to use it. I want my gun, but how do I get to it?". Guess what? Some adult will give the information without realizing its helping the kid to access the firearm and NOT the law-abiding adult. How do we prevent that from happening as a nation, jlf1961? Do we just say it like a buzz word and hope that fixes the problem? Or make it a law? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 But people want to ban guns, when most of the gun owners in the US take measures to prevent unauthorized use. Yes there exists a segment of society that wishes firearms to be ban. And another that says everyone should have any arm they want. Both groups tend to lack wisdom. Do firearm owners take measures to prevent their firearms from falling into the wrong hands on their own? Or due to a law/regulation? An if its due to a law/regulation, why was that law/regulation installed in the first place? quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Personally, if I really wanted a body count, I would use explosives or some other WMD. Why do you think that line commanders have this nice little option of calling in arty or air support? How many high school students or 'average joes on the street' have access to artillery and/or air support? They do have access to firearms which are pretty damn efficient at killing.

EdBowie -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 7:48:08 PM)
Easy to make too. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Hell fill a five gallon metal bucket with black powder and ball bearings, and black powder is easy to purchase at any gun shop.

BamaD -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 7:54:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wendel27 The argument isn't that guns kille people per se JLf as I presume you now. It's that firearms make it exponentially easier to kill someone both physically and psychologically. Heroin doesn't kill people but regardless it's still a serious problem. The debate is far too involved andnuanced to be parsed down to convenient soundbites. And yet anti gun people bombard us with them constantly.

BamaD -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 7:57:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: Again a revitalization of values would do more than all the gun control in the world So far as I've seen, that's a very, very difficult thing to achieve. You reckon it could be done without huge levels of state interference in people's freedoms (as they seem them)? Of course it is hard, that is one reason many people opt for the easy solution of blaming an inanimate object for the evil committed by human beings. It would have to be, you cannot dictate personal responsibility, you cannot dictate values. The only thing the government could do is stop protecting people from their own bad choices. The easiest course of all is to make a problem look so insoluble that no one even seriously bothers to try to solve it. Just saying. And I am not doing that. The first thing we need is parenting. The first thing the gov could do to help with this is to decriminalize the disciplining of children.

BamaD -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/17/2013 7:58:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Wouldn't a valid comparison require that these other countries have at least 300 million people in a very large and developed continental landmass, similar rates of private gun ownership, with the same gun (and I believe, car) culture reinforced by decades of TV, etc? That would make Canada the closest match, would it not?. And if they are having a spree shooting problem, we aren't hearing about it in the news. And, how do we get a workable and quantifiable definition of 'gun control'? And then how would it be applied to rationally predict results? quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer You forgot a highly diverse population. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Only in a comic book world could there ever be as simplistic a solution as one single factor, especially an inanimate object. Pointing out other contributing factors like suicide, the gun culture, the media etc., isn't 'refusing to blame guns', it is trying to figure out a way to prevent more occurrences. That would be more convincing if there weren't actually real life countries that actually share a lot of those aspects of culture with the US, minus that of the US's gun freedom. And, despite the views of a few lunatics here, their inhabitants don't all live like slaves in a Stalinist system. To be clear, though, are you suggesting that the solution might lie in changing a host of quite deeply entrenched aspects of culture as well as that of exerting much stiffer gun control?

Phydeaux -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/18/2013 12:12:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Just as a comparison jlf... quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Dave, I am a gun owner, the only new gun legislation I support is stricter back ground checks, and I know that in every other school in the US no one shot anyone in a school. We don't get this problem here because most people here don't own guns that can be stolen or used by others. Those that do own a gun have gone through rigorous checks. Our licensing laws are much stricter and tighter than in the US. Nobody is allowed to own an arsenal. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I also know that yesterday a number of people were killed by drunk drivers around the country, No one is calling for a ban on cars or stricter guidelines on buying alcoholic beverages or getting shitfaced in a bar We do here. If someone gets shitfaced in a bar and causes trouble, not only the offender is arrested but also the barperson that sold the drinks to them and often the estanlishment is fined for allowing it. Many of our town centres are alcohol-free zones. Anyone caught with open alcohol has it confiscated. Habitual offenders are also arrested and charged for breaking the alcolhol laws. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 a bunch of guys beat the crap out of their wives or girlfriends an/or children using anything handy. No one is screaming about the injustice of that and wanting to control the sale of belts, bats, or any other blunt object. We have laws preventing the sale of such items without proof of age. Many more are also being charged with assult with a weapon (as opposed to common assult) when such items are used in domestic violence. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There were a large number of people texting and driving who had accidents, with and without fatalities. NO one is calling for the ban of cell phones that does not have hands free options. It is illegal in the UK to use a cell phone whilst driving. It gets you a fixed fine and points on your license. Go over your points (12) and you lose it and have to re-take the test again. If you cause any form of sersious incident whilst using a cell phone you could be (and many are) charged with dangerous driving which carries a 10-year ban, a high fine, and often a custodial sentence. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 There were who knows how many hunting accidents, and not necessarily with a gun. No one is calling for the ban of bows and crossbows Those sort of weapons are encompassed within our firearms laws. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Somewhere in this country some jack ass finally got his pit bull, German shepherd, Doberman, Mastiff or some other "dangerous" dog breed to the point that it will attack anything and quite probably kill what it attacks. Alright there are people who think it is the breed that is dangerous and not the asshole that owns the dog Many of those types of dogs are banned in the UK. Not specifically because of the breed as such but because irresponsible owners cannot/will not control them properly. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 A number of vets committed suicide yesterday because our government has put so much red tape in place that the VA is incapable of treating these people in time to prevent them from harming themselves or others. No one is calling for the ban or control of the sale of anything that could remotely be used by a vet to commit suicide. Again, most of this shit is governed by our single-payer healthcare system. I'm not saying suicide doesn't happen but it's quite rare over here amongst veterans. quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 I am sure there were other types of non gun related deaths that were self inflicted, the result or carelessness or intentional desire. My point is that putting up a sign that declares a school a gun free zone is not going to stop a person with a gun from entering that school. Exactly!! And that is why many of us who are not US citizens shake our heads at the numbskulls that defend the current gun laws in the US. And that is why the rest of us are so glad we don't live there. We do have a favor to ask. Would you please, please please, annex california?

Phydeaux -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/18/2013 12:20:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Yes only 'non-normal' people kill others is the most silly argument on this thread. Believe it or not, until you are diagnosis by someone with medical/psychological training and credentials of being mentally or emotionally compromised....YOU ARE NORMAL. Ah, typically liberal nonsense. You aren't crazy (no matter how many voices you hear) until a properly accredited dimocratically approved shrink says you are. LOLOLOLOLOLOL. By that magic wand - a shrink could make all of California crazy. Just by ruling it so. Oh wait.... Of course this is from the same idiot class that believes that giving a speech will stop the seas from rising. And heal the planet. The same Stupid Liberal club that awards Nobel Peace prizes for drone attacks. In that same la la land where the ACA is a stunning success. We know because -you've read it time and time and time again. And proclaimed it - not merely good -but amazing. Earth to visiting alien..

Phydeaux -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/18/2013 12:22:16 AM)
For the record - the largest body count at a school wasn't done by guns. Look it up.

Politesub53 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/18/2013 3:22:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The first thing the gov could do to help with this is to decriminalize the disciplining of children. Just whats needed, a return to the days of child abuse being acceptable. It has been well proven that children who are beaten constantly follow suit as adults.

Politesub53 -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/18/2013 3:31:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux For the record - the largest body count at a school wasn't done by guns. Look it up. For the record....... You have picked the one rare event of a bombing, which took place some 90 years ago, yet are happy to overlook the many dozens of school shootings in the last 20 years alone. I cant fathom out why anyone would think posting such bollocks actually proves any point.

Yachtie -> RE: Anotther school shooting. (12/18/2013 4:57:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The first thing the gov could do to help with this is to decriminalize the disciplining of children. Just whats needed, a return to the days of child abuse being acceptable. It has been well proven that children who are beaten constantly follow suit as adults. Discipline equals child abuse? Are you serious? Or are you utilizing a wholly different word(s) or idea as to, well, be yourself? [:D]

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625