RE: Gun Control And Tragedy

RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Jack45 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:00:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer You are awaken in the night by a criminal in your home, they are comming down the hallway headed towards your childs room, police response time is 10 minutes. You want a gun at that moment? Or would you rather risk it unarmed? That is true, the commercial they show for some alarm company shows woman and children running to bedroom and the alarm company calls and that chases the bad guy away. In real life it isn't that clean. In California some years ago they had the safe storage law passed and so when the mom and dad went out for the evening they locked up the gun case in accordance with the statute. Well that very night an NUDE AXE wielding MANIAC chopped the door down, the 12 year old daughter KNEW how to shoot but could not access the guns due to SAFE STORAGE law. One of the kids was able to get to a neighbor's house and he came with a gun, that saved some kids but most of them were chopped to death. Police finally arrived and finished the guy off. Dozens massacred in gun free zone. AGAIN! quote: I had a horrified fear in the pit of my stomach the moment I read this story. I suspected the reason that this slaughter would could on for so long. And a partial answer is found in the fate of a piece of legislation in the Virginia legislature known as HB 1572. You no doubt haven’t heard about it. The legislation went to the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. And the vote was a quick one. The process was over almost before it began. A spokesman for Virginia Tech was thrilled at the results. He said: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on campus.” Wonderful! People at Virginia Tech were going to feel safe on campus. The legislation in question didn’t pass. It failed. It failed the first hurdle in the legislature. It was legislation that would have allowed students and faculty at Virginia Tech and other universities to carry firearms if they had a valid concealed handgun permit. Virginia Tech was famous for being a “gun free zone”. In June of 2005 a student, who had a gun permit, had a firearm on him when he went onto campus. He was disciplined as a result. At that time the governing board of the university approved another policy which made things loud and clear, they would never allow employees or students to carry firearms for self defense. The governing board openly, publicly, loudly, announced to the world they had disarmed every person on the campus. Every person except, of course, any person who didn’t mind violating the law because he was going to break far more laws that day. And that is precisely what happened. When a person is intent on murder then violating a gun free zone is of little consequence to them. It will not and can not stop that person. It is of major consequence to the law abiding students and faculty, people who have no intentions to harm anyone and want to live peacefully with one another. The ramifications of violating the rules can be high for them. They could lose their job or be expelled. So they abide the law and disarm. They are stripped of the ability to defend themselves and must rely on the state and the state alone. That the gunman was able to walk back on campus two hours after his first shooting spree tells you something about relying on the state for your safety.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:35:45 PM)
Enough said right there. The right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you feel like, in whatever circumstances. One thing I've always wondered about the pro-gun people is exactly where they'd stop. Do you think it would be all right for people to walk around with private nuclear weapons just because the Consitution mentions the right to bear arms? A nice concealed nerve gas capsule? There has to be a line SOMEWHERE--and I'm very curious to know where your line is. (Not to mention your reasoning for drawing that line: if people should have free access to guns, why not anything else too?) Also, according to your logic, people would be safer on airplanes if they could freely bring their firearms on board. That way, if anyone tries to hijack the plane, everyone else could just whip out their Glocks and blow him away. Do you really believe that? And if you don't, then why do you support gun control on airplanes if you don't support it in everyday society? quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Have you ever lived in a country where there is reasonable gun control? No. I have only lived in the US and the way they have tried to control guns with respect to the Second Amendment is not only unreasonable, it's constitutionally impermissible.

farglebargle -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:42:25 PM)
quote: Enough said right there. The right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you feel like, in whatever circumstances. One thing I've always wondered about the pro-gun people is exactly where they'd stop. Do you think it would be all right for people to walk around with private nuclear weapons just because the Consitution mentions the right to bear arms? As a proponent of Liberty, Freedom, and PRIVATE PROPERTY, I say "If you're tall enough to reach across the counter, and you have the cash, there is no lawful reason to prevent you from purchasing ANYTHING you care to". It may be an extreme case of Freedom and Liberty, but if you're going to do something to excess, isn't Freedom and Liberty worthy? The idea that ANYONE could tell a FREE MAN OR WOMAN what they can or cannot do... Well, they aren't FREE are they?

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:43:03 PM)
ummmmmmmmm- this aint against you Lam.....necessarily but it aint a matter of some constitution I own guns and I have the right to bear them(and even if I get that removed, I still will) yes, if everyone is wearing heat you will be a little cooler when you get het up the right to carry states have NEVER had an incident in which there was a shootout at the ok corral (in the common sense) I dont have any love for the anti-carry of guns on a plane. box-cutters were the weapons of choice on the planes. the thing about unruley people is you either have to have a method to not be in their sphere of influnce when they go off, or to have an equitable counter proposal. Ron

farglebargle -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:44:11 PM)
quote: Also, according to your logic, people would be safer on airplanes if they could freely bring their firearms on board. That way, if anyone tries to hijack the plane, everyone else could just whip out their Glocks and blow him away. Do you really believe that? And if you don't, then why do you support gun control on airplanes if you don't support it in everyday society? Didn't see this. If people were known to be armed, hijackers wouldn't attempt it. They'll ALWAYS go for the softest target. By every individual being armed, THERE ARE NO SOFT TARGETS.

caitlyn -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I don't have to make a case for a law that already exists. Artfully evasivie. I don't think I would go quite that far. You get your vote, and I get mine. For every statistic one side can throw out, the other can throw out one with a contrary opinion. I could make a ten page post, and all that would get me is a nasty note from a moderator. [;)][;)] Ranking amendments by importance, is like deciding which tire on a car is more important. If the car is made with four, then they are all pretty important. So, I don't really see anything evasive. You're asking for the answer to a question that doesn't really need answed. It's the law. If you don't agree with it, vote against it. Your opinion is worth one vote ... just like mine.

LadyIce -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:53:54 PM)
I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns. But why are people that are not legal citizens able to buy guns that have green cards. I was shocked to hear he was able to buy guns with a green card. I think that law should be changed. But, if someone wants to get a gun or a weapon he will find a way. Making it harder for American citizens to purchase firearms, will make us all easy targets for criminals, because they will know we probably do not have a gun, expecially in our homes to protect themselves. I agree with the OP, I admit I had to read it several times to understand it.

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 6:54:37 PM)
that may be abaft the beam fargle, while I agree in whole with you in certain contexts, I will point out that in the absence of certain life options (see Iraq in the wiki-pedia) just because someone has a gun does not make them victorious or a 'cooler', it just makes it harder for the average guy to find a reason to pick the lock.........nuts grow on trees. Euell Gibbons

dcnovice -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 7:04:22 PM)
quote: I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns. The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon.

lockedaway -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 7:05:57 PM)
Fargle is gasp right. Sure, a whole plane load of people (except me) whipping out their Glocks (cuz I would be whipping out a Kimber model 1911 .45) would stop a hijacking terrorist. It would probably lead to explosive decompression and cause the plane to crash anyway but that's beside the point. If you are unarmed, you are a much softer target than someone who is armed. If someone knows or has a pretty good reason to believe that you are armed and ready to defend yourself, they aren't going to attack you. There is only one meaningful statistic in the gun control argument and that is the percentage of crimes that are committed by legal gun owners and that percentage remains in the 1% range. That people with green cards can buy weapons does not make sense to me. It should be a right reserved to a citizen but that is purely my opinion. John Gambling has a radio show on which he said something amazingly dumb. He said that he owns shotguns and rifles but only pistols were designed to kill people. All guns were designed to kill whatever living them you shoot them at. That is the nature of the machine. If this monster couldn't have gotten his hands on pistols, he may have gotten his hands on a semi automatic 12 gauge duck gun. Slice it anyway you want, his actions were premeditated and he planned this slaughter for quite awhile before he committed it. He didn't just wake up one morning and "snap." There is no law that can be passed that will protect us from aberrant behavior. But in the attempt to do so, you will lose every ounce of liberty you have.

mnottertail -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 7:09:50 PM)
unless sawed off shotguns could be devised as legal again, I would be against taking them on a plane------already you got these two ton motherfuckers carrying little Istanbul around and trying to jack them into the overhead. no Ron

Sinergy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 7:34:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns. The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon. So a more lingering method of killing people is preferable? Sinergy

dcnovice -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 8:22:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns. The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon. So a more lingering method of killing people is preferable? Sinergy Had it taken him longer to dispatch people, others might have had a greater chance of (a) escaping and (b) calling for help.

Sinergy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 8:28:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: I agree this tragedy did not occur because of guns. The guns helped, though, didn't they? It's hard to picture his killing so many people so quickly with another weapon. So a more lingering method of killing people is preferable? Sinergy Had it taken him longer to dispatch people, others might have had a greater chance of (a) escaping and (b) calling for help. That was not my question. You made the point about the speed with which people were dispatched. People paralyzed by adrenalin will just stand there and be killed by a frying pan or a pair of canvas sneakers. Taking guns away from people will not solve the causes that drove this person to murder a whole bunch of people, it will only add a level of complexity to him doing so. I would prefer to deal with the cause of the problems, rather than the methodology the problem is expressed. Sinergy

dcnovice -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 8:36:14 PM)
Sinergy --- I agree that Cho's problems were deeper than "methodology," but I also think his "methodology" -- i.e., guns -- enabled him to kill many more people than he probably would have otherwise. DC

cloudboy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 8:40:41 PM)
Your relativism stance here makes it seem we debating matters of taste (vanilla v. chocolate ice cream) instead of public policy.

popeye1250 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 9:11:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Enough said right there. The right to bear arms is not the same thing as the right to bear whatever weapon you feel like, in whatever circumstances. One thing I've always wondered about the pro-gun people is exactly where they'd stop. Do you think it would be all right for people to walk around with private nuclear weapons just because the Consitution mentions the right to bear arms? A nice concealed nerve gas capsule? There has to be a line SOMEWHERE--and I'm very curious to know where your line is. (Not to mention your reasoning for drawing that line: if people should have free access to guns, why not anything else too?) Also, according to your logic, people would be safer on airplanes if they could freely bring their firearms on board. That way, if anyone tries to hijack the plane, everyone else could just whip out their Glocks and blow him away. Do you really believe that? And if you don't, then why do you support gun control on airplanes if you don't support it in everyday society? quote: ORIGINAL: Pulpsmack quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Have you ever lived in a country where there is reasonable gun control? No. I have only lived in the US and the way they have tried to control guns with respect to the Second Amendment is not only unreasonable, it's constitutionally impermissible. I'm all for guns on planes! Just use frangible bullets like the air marshalls. And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue. What happenned with that?

dcnovice -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 9:18:18 PM)
quote: And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue. What happenned with that? They're on back-order.

Sinergy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 9:23:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue. Two words : Al Capone. To the poster who stated a hollow point 9mm bullet going approximately 900 fps will not penetrate a sheet of plastic and a thin sheet of aluminum, take your gun to the pistol range, hang a sheet of 1/8 inch plastic and a sheet of airplane fuselage aluminum and see if a bullet will penetrate it. Please do not take this posting to mean I necessarily object to everybody running around heavily armed, I just think a lot of people dont really think things out very deeply before posting. Sinergy

Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/19/2007 9:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: And, you used to be able to order a Thompson submachinegun in the Sears catalogue. What happenned with that? They're on back-order. Stop teasing me... I'd say "I'd kill to have a tommygun" but some people might take me literally around here. $35,000 dollars is a little rich for my blood [&o]

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875