quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation


Consider this - hypothetically i have a criminal record which means i cannot obtain a gun licence. So i live in my home with no gun and one night a rapist breaks in and not only does he rape me but he kills me. Would you cry then that i should have been allowed a gun even though i had been deemed unfit to have one?
 
I have a gun licence and i keep my gun locked away but one day accidently little joe gets hold of the keys and manages to get my gun. He accidently shoots himself. Was i responsible enough to have a gun licence if little joe managed to get hold of the keys?
 
I have a short fuse temper wise but have never committed an actual crime and pass my gun course and am allowed a licence. I lose my temper one day and in a fit of rage and kill someone. Did the course or the background check really get it right? 
 
 

• A handgun was used in 68 percent of the shootings (34 cases) as the only or primary weapon, while in 32 percent (16 cases) a rifle or shotgun was used as the only or primary weapon.8
  
  
• In 53 percent of the handgun shootings (18 cases) the handguns were purchased legally.9
  
  
• In 75 percent of the long-gun shootings (12 cases) the guns were purchased legally.10
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation


Consider this - hypothetically i have a criminal record which means i cannot obtain a gun licence. So i live in my home with no gun and one night a rapist breaks in and not only does he rape me but he kills me. Would you cry then that i should have been allowed a gun even though i had been deemed unfit to have one?
 
I have a gun licence and i keep my gun locked away but one day accidently little joe gets hold of the keys and manages to get my gun. He accidently shoots himself. Was i responsible enough to have a gun licence if little joe managed to get hold of the keys?
 
I have a short fuse temper wise but have never committed an actual crime and pass my gun course and am allowed a licence. I lose my temper one day and in a fit of rage and kill someone. Did the course or the background check really get it right? 
 
 

1) I think the rapist might have killed you in such circumstances regardless of you having a gun, since in the UK the gun would have had to be secured in a steel box and you would never have got there in time. Given you had the gun available and shot him, your life is over anyway as it would be a life sentence for murder under our crazy laws. Overall though, I tend to think that given a significant criminal record, one might find onesself living in an area of high crime and would have some weapon available at bedside, even if thats not a gun. At close quarters, a knife is better I think.
That isn't what i asked though.

2) If Little Joe sticks his head in the oven, cuts his finger with a kitchen knife, drowns in the bath etc, then by that argument you should not have children and be confined to living in a tent where no harm can come to those in your home.
Yes if joe sticks his head in the oven or cut his finger with a kitchen knife i would blame myself for not upervising him properly.

3) Given a murderous fit of rage, a gun is only a weapon of convenience if available. Its quite possible not to kill with a gun, just as it is possible to kill by other, perhaps more convenient means that are to hand at the time.

I note though, that in each scenario it is human beings killing/injuring one another, a gun or absence thereof being an accessory to that.
Yes it is and im talking about those deemed fit to hold a licence when in reality they werent. There has been talk that the gun course and background check proves a persons worth and as i have shown in the post above this is not the case.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Again though MissT, this identifies that there is a problem with the way the system is administered, not with guns per se.

It was because of the ridiculous mismanagement of the UK system, resulting in two psychiatric cases having weapons, that we ended up with a ban here, and thousands of law abiding citizens who enjoyed nothing more criminal than target shooting in police approved ranges, had to hand in their weapons.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nastgargoyle

Since the firearms used at VT by Cho for the shootings were illegally aquired, and it was a failure in the legal system that allowed that to happen, I still have to stay with My vote that school official and employees that want to be certified to carry a handgun for the protection of students on a campus be allowed to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nastgargoyle

Intresting note on that arguement about the 873 weapons realted arrests, in Texas, if you have a carry permit, and someone See's that you have the weapon, even its outline under a jacket, your arrested for a weapons related offense and loose the permit, that 873 isnt listed as an aggravated number, its a listing of people that got saw with a gun and it broke the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Again though MissT, this identifies that there is a problem with the way the system is administered, not with guns per se.

It was because of the ridiculous mismanagement of the UK system, resulting in two psychiatric cases having weapons, that we ended up with a ban here, and thousands of law abiding citizens who enjoyed nothing more criminal than target shooting in police approved ranges, had to hand in their weapons.

E

Yes and as i have said the system needs to be looked at but the attitude here is 'arm everyone and everything will be ok'.

quote:


Yes and as i have said the system needs to be looked at but the attitude here is 'arm everyone and everything will be ok'.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:


Yes and as i have said the system needs to be looked at but the attitude here is 'arm everyone and everything will be ok'.

More like, "If *I* am armed, *I* know that *I* can take care of *MYSELF*.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nastgargoyle

And I don't recall saying that My attitude is arm everyone and it will be okay, though I will readily admit that the way you seem determined to ignore the reality of guns are here and bad people have them and will use them is aggravating.
I'm perfectly aware guns are here and bad people use them - ive never said any differently. Amazingly though some of the bad people with guns have guns legally and aggravatingly you seem determined to ignore that.
The simple truth of everything that I have seen you produce is that you have the opinion that all weapons in all hands are bad, and that anyone with a weapon is a maniac trigger set to go on a killing spree.
Nope, i have only said that i do not believe the general public should not have guns. I also never said everyone would go on a killing spree. Do not put words in my mouth for me.
Your seeming solution to this is scream total disarmament completely ignoring the fact that a person who is willing to walk into a school and shoot up 60+ people is also going to be willing to break the law and aquire the weapons to do it.
Nope never denied that either.
And in your total disarmaent theorum you take the stance that a person can defend themselfs effectively without a firearm against people that do have them.
Show me where i said that?
Point of fact missturbation, I could defend Myself against Cho without a gun.
I could have killed, disarmed, maimed, or crippled him in more ways than you could imagine given the oppurtunity had I been given the chance.
Good for you im so thrilled to hear it.
I might even have felt emotionally awful about the loss of the young mans life while I tore his throat out and tucked it in his shirt pocket.
Grow up.
You could'nt, can't, and would never be able to.
How do you know what im trained to do? Presumptous sort arent you?
Everything that you've said, noted, and produced espouses your right to be the victim of your choice. And that is your right.
Yes it is and your opinion is yours and you are entitled to it.
None of it seems directed though towards the original topic of this thread.
It is actually. The way the thread was going. They very rarely stay right on topic and if you dont like it well dont post in it.
Given the fact that there ARE mentally unstable people in this WORLD, that will aquire a weapon and walk into a SCHOOL and begin KILLING people, what is your opinion about arming the QUALIFIED teachers and faculty of a campus?
I'm actually quite split on this one. Teachers i dont believe should be armed. Security well presumabloy their training is such that it should be reasonably safe to arm them. However not every member of security or police has proved to be reliable with a gun. I actually though have all along never mentioned security or police or army in my thought that guns should not be allowed. My standing has been the general public.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nastgargoyle

Given the fact that there ARE mentally unstable people in this WORLD, that will aquire a weapon and walk into a SCHOOL and begin KILLING people, what is your opinion about arming the QUALIFIED teachers and faculty of a campus?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nastgargoyle

Given the fact that there ARE mentally unstable people in this WORLD, that will aquire a weapon and walk into a SCHOOL and begin KILLING people, what is your opinion about arming the QUALIFIED teachers and faculty of a campus?

I believe the problem is, that it is the qualified persons who are guilty of the most weapons related offences, according to the stats posted.

The question remains, how does one ascertain who is suitable and then maintain a control on their suitability as time passes? An approved teacher may be stable today, but what about next month when his wife leaves him, for instance? Maintenance of control over suitability would necessitate such intrusion into private life as to be most unwelcome, even if it were possible.

Here in the UK, I lost my final firearm five years ago - a muzzle loading matchlock musket that was of no use whatever for criminal or suicidal endeavour, the day after my doctor prescribed me pills for depression....... clearly she had informed the police about my mental state, which is a most unwelcome intrusion, but perhaps a precautionary measure she thought necessary. Unless such intrusion is possible in the US, then there is no way to prevent others who own weapons legally who go off the rails, from repeating the same sort of spree as Cho enacted.

E