Page 15 of 27 FirstFirst ... 51525 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 375 of 652
  1. #351
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuuichi View Post
    I fully agree with you, I was aiming at the people who did say ban all guns in USA will magicly solve it. There have been a few, Stricter gun laws? now I will have to see what defines that but I do not think we need it as much as we need people to just have a little bit more common sense with guns. The law can only do so much. Bottom line is stupid people will always be stupid. Common sense is not a strong point in USA I admit that and so will anyone who has worked retail here lol.
    yeah, we have our fair share here, a majority in fact, but regardless, any real tightening of gun laws will be seen, or touted, by interest groups as an effective ban. you have to take away guns from stupid people, and its why so few own them here. if i remember rightly we have to have visits from the police and jump through several hoops to own guns, and are then checked up on every year or so.

    the problem comes from the second amendment imo. guns should not be a right. they just shouldn't. they should be something you can earn if you want. much like a car i guess. if you've got no spatial awareness, you aren't allowed to drive. if you've no braincells, you shouldn't be allowed a gun.

    what exactly defines the level at which you can have one, i don't know, but i doubt reforms will ever get that far. but people shouldn't be as shocked when something like this happens. its horrific, but not overly surprising. if to prevent this you have to take away everyones' right, and start all over again, so be it imo.

    some of those teachers though. true selflessness - and there aren't many selfless acts around today
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 04:17.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  2. #352
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,005
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,896 (0 Banked)
    Old article, but relevant to the discussion:

    http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/

    “How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century. Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”

    So began an extraordinary daylong seminar presented by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a Pulitzer Prize nominated author, West Point psychology professor, and without a doubt the world’s foremost expert on human aggression and violence. The event, hosted by the California Peace Officers Association, was held in the auditorium of a very large community church about 30 miles from San Francisco, and was attended by more than 250 police officers from around the region.

    Grossman’s talk spanned myriad topics of vital importance to law enforcement, such as the use of autogenic breathing, surviving gunshot wounds, dealing with survivor guilt following a gun battle, and others. In coming months, I will present a series of articles addressing many of these subjects, but violence among and against children was how the day began, and so it is in this area I will begin my coverage...

    Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, pictured with PoliceOne Senior Editor Doug Wyllie, spoke before a crowd of more than 250 police officers in an event hosted by the California Peace Officers Association. (PoliceOne image)
    Related Articles:
    Arming campus cops is elementaryA decade after Columbine we're still learning, teaching
    Related Resources:
    Book Excerpt: On Sheep, Wolves, and SheepdogsVisit the Killology Research Group website
    Related Feature:
    Helping schools prepare for an active-shooter showdown
    Sheriff Fred Wegener says that preparing schools for an active shooter is community policing at its best.
    Related content sponsored by:

    “In 1998,” Grossman said, “school violence claimed what at the time was an all time record number of kids’ lives. In that year there were 35 dead and a quarter of a million serious injuries due to violence in the school. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. But we hear people say, ‘That’s the year Columbine happened, that’s an anomaly.’ Well, in 2004 we had a new all time record — 48 dead in the schools from violence. How many killed by fire that year? Zero. Let’s assign some grades. Put your teacher hat on and give out some grades. What kind of grade do you give the firefighter for keeping kids safe? An ‘A,’ right? Reluctantly, reluctantly, the cops give the firefighters an ‘A,’ right? Danged firefighters, they sleep ‘till they’re hungry and eat ‘till they’re tired. What grade do we get for keeping the kids safe from violence? Come on, what’s our grade? Needs improvement, right?”

    Johnny Firefighter, A+ Student
    “Why can’t we be like little Johnny Firefighter?” Grossman asked as he prowled the stage. “He’s our A+ student!”

    He paused, briefly, and answered with a voice that blew through the hall like thunder, “Denial, denial, denial!”

    Grossman commanded, “Look up at the ceiling! See all those sprinklers up there? They’re hard to spot — they’re painted black — but they’re there. While you’re looking, look at the material the ceiling is made of. You know that that stuff was selected because it’s fire-retardant. Hooah? Now look over there above the door — you see that fire exit sign? That’s not just any fire exit sign — that’s a ‘battery-backup-when-the-world-ends-it-will-still-be-lit’ fire exit sign. Hooah?”

    Walking from the stage toward a nearby fire exit and exterior wall, Grossman slammed the palm of his hand against the wall and exclaimed, “Look at these wall boards! They were chosen because they’re what?! Fireproof or fire retardant, hooah? There is not one stinking thing in this room that will burn!”

    Pointing around the room as he spoke, Grossman continued, “But you’ve still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? NO! This fire guy is our A+ student! Because this fire guy has redundant, overlapping layers of protection, not a single kid has been killed by school fire in the last 50 years!

    “But you try to prepare for violence — the thing much more likely to kill our kids in schools, the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill our kids in schools — and people think you’re paranoid. They think you’re crazy. ...They’re in denial.”

    Teaching the Teachers
    The challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school administrators, and parents. Grossman said that agencies and officers, although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public, must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what they can do in the event of an attack.

    “Come with me to the library at Columbine High School,” Grossman said. “The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do. But the thing most likely to kill her kids — the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn’t have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian’s office but she didn’t know that. So she did the worst thing possible — she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library — a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It’s an aquarium, it’s a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl.”

    Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they’d spent preparing for fire — if the teachers there had spent a fraction of the time they spent preparing for fire — doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different.

    Rhetorically he asked the assembled cops, “If somebody had spent five minutes telling that teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at Columbine?”

    Arming Campus Cops is Elementary
    Nearly two years ago, I wrote an article called Arming campus cops is elementary. Not surprisingly, Grossman agrees with that hypothesis.

    “Never call an unarmed man ‘security’,” Grossman said.

    “Call him ‘run-like-hell-when-the-man-with-the-gun-shows-up’ but never call an unarmed man security. Imagine if someone said, ‘I want a trained fire professional on site. I want a fire hat, I want a fire uniform, I want a fire badge. But! No fire extinguishers in this building. No fire hoses. The hat, the badge, the uniform — that will keep us safe — but we have no need for fire extinguishers.’ Well, that would be insane. It is equally insane, delusional, legally liable, to say, ‘I want a trained security professional on site. I want a security hat, I want a security uniform, and I want a security badge, but I don’t want a gun.’ It’s not the hat, the uniform, or the badge. It’s the tools in the hands of a trained professional that keeps us safe.

    “Our problem is not money,” said Grossman. “It is denial.”

    Grossman said (and most cops agree) that many of the most important things we can do to protect our kids would cost us nothing or next-to-nothing.

    Grossman’s Five D’s
    In the next installment of this series, I will explore what follows in much greater detail, but for now, let’s contemplate the following outline and summary of Dave Grossman’s “Five D’s.” While you do, I encourage you to add in the comments area below your suggestions to address, and expand upon, these ideas.

    1. Denial — Denial is the enemy and it has no survival value, said Grossman.

    2. Deter — Put police officers in schools, because with just one officer assigned to a school, the probability of a mass murder in that school drops to almost zero

    3. Detect — We’re talking about plain old fashioned police work here. The ultimate achievement for law enforcement is the crime that didn’t happen, so giving teachers and administrators regular access to cops is paramount.

    4. Delay — Various simple mechanisms can be used by teachers and cops to put time and distance between the killers and the kids.

    a. Ensure that the school/classroom have just a single point of entry. Simply locking the back door helps create a hard target.
    b. Conduct your active shooter drills within (and in partnership with) the schools in your city so teachers know how to respond, and know what it looks like when you do your response.

    5. Destroy — Police officers and agencies should consider the following:

    a. Carry off duty. No one would tell a firefighter who has a fire extinguisher in his trunk that he’s crazy or paranoid.
    b. Equip every cop in America with a patrol rifle. One chief of police, upon getting rifles for all his officers once said, “If an active killer strikes in my town, the response time will be measured in feet per second.”
    c. Put smoke grenades in the trunk of every cop car in America. Any infantryman who needs to attack across open terrain or perform a rescue under fire deploys a smoke grenade. A fire extinguisher will do a decent job in some cases, but a smoke grenade is designed to perform the function.
    d. Have a “go-to-war bag” filled with lots of loaded magazines and supplies for tactical combat casualty care.
    e. Use helicopters. Somewhere in your county you probably have one or more of the following: medivac, media, private, national guard, coast guard rotors.
    f. Employ the crew-served, continuous-feed, weapon you already have available to you (a firehouse) by integrating the fire service into your active shooter training. It is virtually impossible for a killer to put well-placed shots on target while also being blasted with water at 300 pounds per square inch.
    g. Armed citizens can help. Think United 93. Whatever your personal take on gun control, it is all but certain that a killer set on killing is more likely to attack a target where the citizens are unarmed, rather than one where they are likely to encounter an armed citizen response.

    Coming Soon: External Threats
    Today we must not only prepare for juvenile mass murder, something that had never happened in human history until only recently, but we also must prepare for the external threat. Islamist fanatics have slaughtered children in their own religion — they have killed wantonly, mercilessly, and without regard for repercussion or regret of any kind. What do you think they’d think of killing our kids?

    “Eight years ago they came and killed 3,000 of our citizens. Do we know what they’re going to do next? No! But one thing they’ve done in every country they’ve messed with is killing kids in schools.”

    The latest al Qaeda charter states that “children are noble targets” and Osama bin Laden himself has said that “Russia is a preview for what we will do to America.”

    What happened in Russia that we need to be concerned with in this context? In the town of Beslan on September 1, 2004 — the very day on which children across that country merrily make their return to school after the long summer break — radical Islamist terrorists from Chechnya took more than 1,000 teachers, mothers, and children hostage. When the three-day siege was over, more than 300 hostages had been killed, more than half of whom were children.

    “If I could tackle every American and make them read one book to help them understand the terrorist’s plan, it would be Terror at Beslan by John Giduck. Beslan was just a dress rehearsal for what they’re planning to do to the United States.”

    A future feature will focus solely on the issue of the terror threats against American schools, but for the time being consider this: There are almost a half a million school busses in America — it would require every enlisted person and every officer in the entire Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps combined to put just one armed guard on every school bus in the country.

    As a country and as a culture, the level of protection Americans afford our kids against violence is nothing near what we do to protect them from fire. Grossman is correct: Denial is the enemy. We must prepare for violence like the firefighter prepares for fire. And we must do that today.

    Hooah, Colonel!

  3. Likes F34R likes this post
  4. #353
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    is the forum really slow for anyone else? strange, seems pretty inactive too
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  5. #354
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Old article, but relevant to the discussion:

    http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...emy-is-denial/
    he makes some good points, but i can't see an active cop reducing the threat to anywhere near zero. or having a single point of entry being the solution. they are things that definitely will help, in some circumstances, as much as legally having to lock your gun away, or applying for a stricter licence, would help. these aren't cures, they are common sense. they won't always stop everyone, but they'll stop some, and give time for others to perhaps spot a potential masacre.

    sure, it'll go wrong again, we're talking about people, not fire. fire isn't resourceful or vengeful. its a useful analogy so long as you don't use it to ignore other ways of applying common sense. and it strikes me that perhaps it would be. in reality its just about limiting the chances of disaster, and that needs a kitchen sink approach. but as with everything, common sense takes a back seat in politics to those that feel aggreived about their rights and manage to shout the loudest.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 04:36.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  6. #355
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,005
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,896 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    he makes some good points, but i can't see an active cop reducing the threat to anywhere near zero. or having a single point of entry being the solution. they are things that definitely will help, in some circumstances, as much as legally having to lock your gun away, or applying for a stricter licence, would help. these aren't cures, they are common sense.

    sure, it'll go wrong again, we're talking about people, not fire. fire isn't resourceful or vengeful. its a useful analogy so long as you don't use it to ignore other ways of applying common sense. its just about limiting the chances. but as with everything, common sense takes a back seat in politics to those that feel aggreived about their rights and manage to shout the loudest.
    From reports on active shootings, most tend to stop/turn the gun on themselves when they encounter armed resistance.

    And the vast majority of mass shootings tend to occur in gun free zones.

  7. #356
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    From reports on active shootings, most tend to stop/turn the gun on themselves when they encounter armed resistance.

    And the vast majority of mass shootings tend to occur in gun free zones.
    yeah, i think its stupid not to have someone there, or at least a weapon someone could go for. but it wouldn't always stop a kid shooting up a classroom or two. it might lessen the scale and the frequency. i think his ideas are good. but they aren't a solution that renders other considerations unnecessary, and i think the 'zero deaths from fire' comparison suggests that. which is a bit dangerous.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 04:41.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  8. #357
    Legend
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    F34RTEHR34PER
    Posts
    40,122
    Rep Power
    244
    Points
    147,835 (0 Banked)
    Items BullySteamGran Turismo 5LiverpoolAppleJoker (limited ICON)Naughty DogMaster ChiefAssassins Creed EzioGears of WarHeavy RainDiablo III
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    he makes some good points, but i can't see an active cop reducing the threat to anywhere near zero. or having a single point of entry being the solution. they are things that definitely will help, in some circumstances, as much as legally having to lock your gun away, or applying for a stricter licence, would help. these aren't cures, they are common sense. they won't always stop everyone, but they'll stop some, and give time for others to perhaps spot a potential masacre.

    sure, it'll go wrong again, we're talking about people, not fire. fire isn't resourceful or vengeful. its a useful analogy so long as you don't use it to ignore other ways of applying common sense. and it strikes me that perhaps it would be. in reality its just about limiting the chances of disaster, and that needs a kitchen sink approach. but as with everything, common sense takes a back seat in politics to those that feel aggreived about their rights and manage to shout the loudest.
    Yes, it does make the threat go to near zero. This is why we do it. Since our shooting in 1995, there have been cops in every school we have in our county. That's ten public schools from k-12 across three cities. Yes, there's been problems. There have been guns found on students that were planning to shoot others, there have been guns in lockers, knives, drugs, etc., but not one single shooting since 1995. That puts the probability down to near zero.

    I cop with a radio can get the response time of help down a great deal instead of a phone call to 911, info taken, then passed on through the radio system. If resource A, from the elem school has a threat, all she has to do is yell HELP on the radio. We all know where she's at, and if we don't, the 800mhz radios ID who it is automatically, and where her position is. We are there. Delay, Deter, and Destroy.. three words that are drilled into us during our training and scenarios, etc.

    We didn't have this training before Columbine, for sure. That's why they sat outside while all these kids were killed there. Now, if that happens... the first one on scene waits about thirty seconds for another officer... if that person doesn't get there in half min., I go it alone, and go as fast as I can with the M4 at the ready until I find the suspect, and put him down. Period.
    Last edited by F34R; 12-17-2012 at 04:48.




  9. #358
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    which state is this?

    Quote Originally Posted by F34R View Post
    I go it alone, and go as fast as I can with the M4 at the ready until I find the suspect, and put him down. Period.
    but its not really "period" at all, is it? as fast as you can doesn't always solve the problem. are you saying there's never been a death when an SRO is on campus? is the SRO even always competent? i somehow doubt that the levels are actually zero, or as low as they could be.

    besides, it kind of misses the point - reducing on campus gun crime, which is obviously a good thing, is just that - a reduction - it isn't the end of the discussion at school or elsewhere. on a bus? at the mall? you haven't solved the issue if a kid is $#@!ed in the head and wants revenge. you've helped massively, and as i said i'm not against armed officers in schools, but why not consider other ways of preventing childeren from killing others, in addition? $#@! it, if you want guns in schools do what israel does and arm the teachers. better than an SRO.

    it shouldn't really be the end of the discussion. at the end of the day a child should find it incredibly hard to get anywhere near a gun and THEN find it incredibly hard to use it.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 05:48.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  10. #359
    Apprentice

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    The state of Natural
    Posts
    185
    Rep Power
    15
    Points
    3,057 (0 Banked)
    OMG! I can't believe I forgot this reference. Well, I was still a kid myself or in my teens at the time but anyway There was something that happend similar to this in Jonesboro, Arkansas in the 90's. From what I remember the kid involved went to juvenile jail. When he was released years later, and also a legal adult the SOB got pulled over by law enforcement in my area and he had several guns with him in the vehicle he was driving. I know one of the guys that was at the traffic stop and he said they looked for every excuse to nail him with some serious charges but couldn't do anything because all that stuff happend when he was a juvenile and his records were sealed. So it's like it never happend.

    The point is, at that time NO ONE would have ever thought something like that would have happend. Between that time and now, there have been more accounts of things like this. But each new account seems to be more and more extreme.

    I think there is something to taking away guns from STUPID people, but they should take steps to identify them before. This idiot had access to guns that were not locked away properly. But how would someone know? The reports as of the last time I checked were that he did not give off any indication or signs of being someone that would do this. I wonder if this is just an instance of people just being plain evil for no reason at all other than that. That sends chills down my spine to think about that he could have not even had a reason. He just WANTED to do it, for the shock factor. That is just pure speculation on my part.

    But banning guns won't stop people. You can't do any harm without bullets. Maby restricting bullets and materials to make bullets, such as gunpowder or tools to make your own? Guns need bullets to do ANY damage at all, otherwise it's just a piece of metal and polymer.

  11. #360
    Legend
    F34R's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    PSN ID
    F34RTEHR34PER
    Posts
    40,122
    Rep Power
    244
    Points
    147,835 (0 Banked)
    Items BullySteamGran Turismo 5LiverpoolAppleJoker (limited ICON)Naughty DogMaster ChiefAssassins Creed EzioGears of WarHeavy RainDiablo III
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    which state is this?



    but its not really "period" at all, is it? as fast as you can doesn't always solve the problem. are you saying there's never been a death when an SRO is on campus? is the SRO even always competent? i somehow doubt that the levels are actually zero, or as low as they could be.

    besides, it kind of misses the point - reducing on campus gun crime, which is obviously a good thing, is just that - a reduction - it isn't the end of the discussion at school or elsewhere. on a bus? at the mall? you haven't solved the issue if a kid is $#@!ed in the head and wants revenge. you've helped massively, and as i said i'm not against armed officers in schools, but why not consider other ways of preventing childeren from killing others, in addition? $#@! it, if you want guns in schools do what israel does and arm the teachers. better than an SRO.

    it shouldn't really be the end of the discussion. at the end of the day a child should find it incredibly hard to get anywhere near a gun and THEN find it incredibly hard to use it.
    The "period", It means there isn't anything to do other than find the shooter and stop him when the problem has begun there.

    I'm all for other things added to aid in prevention.




  12. #361
    Master Guru
    THUGGEDOUT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Jamming to Lamb of God with Pinhead...
    PSN ID
    THUGGEDOUT1
    Posts
    7,121
    Rep Power
    76
    Points
    145,281 (905,285 Banked)
    Items LBP ColeLBP SephirothLBP KratosLBP HelgastLBP EzioLBP Cloud
    I'd really like to know what this $#@!suckers motive was, just caught the news reporter say this morning that it was his old school? If so, he have some sort of beef with the school psychiatrist?


    Tap-a-hoe


    "When I was 12, I milked my eel into a pot of turtle stew. I flogged the one-eyed snake, I skinned my sausage. I made the bald man cry into the turtle stew, which I believe my sister ate. At least I hope she did."




  13. #362
    Forum Guru
    -Dj-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    PSN ID
    djpenny1
    Age
    24
    Posts
    3,606
    Rep Power
    72
    Points
    79,770 (302,302 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by THUGGEDOUT View Post
    I'd really like to know what this $#@!suckers motive was, just caught the news reporter say this morning that it was his old school? If so, he have some sort of beef with the school psychiatrist?


    Tap-a-hoe
    nah they poof he never went to that school



  14. #363
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    8,478
    Rep Power
    102
    Points
    2,407 (0 Banked)
    To all who quoted me before the following quote in this post: I'm not changing my stance. A kid can be brought up to be mature enough to handle a weapon in public places such as schools. There just has to be a will to educate them and bring them up right.

    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    as much as i dont' want to get drawn into this.... you may also have to accept these tragedies as a regular occurance if guns are so readily available. its a simple fact that if here, in the uk, (*and this is not a 'we're better than you comment, just an observation*) a student wanted to cause as much damage they would find it very difficult to get hold of a weapon capable of doing so. i'm sure they could attempt something similar, but its the scale that makes this so shocking, and its the weapon that facilitated the scale.

    and, in all honesty, the idea of checks and balances is wildly outdated imo. if the government turned on the population it would have the army on side. and if that was the case, you'd lose, or the army would shy away from slaughtering you. its probably why the second amendment can't be wheeled out in defense of owning a tank.

    and this is ignoring the fact that no western government would want to turn on its population anyway. you are already where they want you. you make them, and those around them, rich. you seen any of the members of congress suffering from austerity? because our parliament certainly isn't....

    fear of tyranny really shouldn't have much to do with it
    Sorry J3ff3 but I don't think that's the case. What we have here is an epidemic of lack of personal responsibility, coupled with bad parenting and lack of education. The fact is, this isn't acceptable by any standard and we don't have to accept that these things will happen because of our gun laws. That in my opinion, is a cop-out and a poor excuse. The rest of your post, I will just that I agree to disagree.

  15. Likes $Greatness$ likes this post
  16. #364
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by Morganator View Post
    To all who quoted me before the following quote in this post: I'm not changing my stance. A kid can be brought up to be mature enough to handle a weapon in public places such as schools. There just has to be a will to educate them and bring them up right.



    Sorry J3ff3 but I don't think that's the case. What we have here is an epidemic of lack of personal responsibility, coupled with bad parenting and lack of education. The fact is, this isn't acceptable by any standard and we don't have to accept that these things will happen because of our gun laws. That in my opinion, is a cop-out and a poor excuse. The rest of your post, I will just that I agree to disagree.
    but the point is a good upbringing and education isn't always enough. some people are just thick/emotional/unstable/etc. and because that will always be the case, regardless of education, guns should be a "right" that you earn, not deserve purely because you exist. i see absolutely nothing wrong with making gun ownership a challenge to achieve. i do like the driving analogy. the more thorough the test, driving or licensing, the fewer people die unecessarily because the tool itself, be it a car or gun, is more likely to be used in an appropriate manner.

    i really don't see why this should be any different.


    ** edit: my friend was very good at driving. had been since 14 round a field, he had great car control. but he failed his test 6 times (its harder here, we have circles in the middle of our roads). it wasn't that he was useless with the vehicle, it was his attitude when driving. too fast, too confident, too at ease with what he was doing. and that sort of judgement should translate to guns. you can have grown up around them, shot them all your life, but if you are so familiar with them that you don't show them the proper respect - for example locking them away, then perhaps you shouldn't have one, or should have to be penelised or re-educated in their use.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 15:23.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  17. #365
    young rich and tasteless
    squirrelbo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    London
    Age
    23
    Posts
    16,768
    Rep Power
    134
    Points
    16,383 (0 Banked)
    Items ChelseaPS3 Fat
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by PeanutButterMunky View Post
    That sounds like a very scary notion.

    I agree with the cops being on campus. I don't know why this isn't a mandatory law. And I don't mean patrolling every now and then, I mean on campus all day.
    Somebody has to pay for it. In a country where police budgets are shrinking (its happening all over Europe too) and the right is calling for a reduction in taxes where is the money to train and maintain an officer on site every day ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yuuichi View Post
    Ok this comparing cultures have got to stop. If USA was to suddenly ban guns they would still be easy to get just like DRUGS, WHICH ARE ILLEGAL YET EASY TO GET, and it would cause more violence, JUST LIKE BANING ALCHOOL DID. Most gun related incidence have, AND HAS BEEN LINKED MANY TIMES IN THREAD, been used with a relative weapons. This is more of a case of someone not locking up their guns properly and you can not baby sit everyone. I have guns and they are all locked in a safe where only me and wife know pass code.

    Bottom line is it is far to late to out right ban guns like some people suggest. We are looking at guns and not one of you "ban gun" people have even show the slightest interest in, make health care not a business and re-institutionalize America so those who have mental problems get the help they need, argument even a hint of acknowledgement. STOP looking at the tool and start asking yourselves why a person with mental sickness was not given the help he needed(of course this post will prob be ignored like my others because it shifts focus from guns and guns are bad mmmkay)



    A GOOD gun owner would have their guns locked up aside from the home defense one. Sadly most do not do this.
    Re read the thread. I'm not pro guns and my first argument was how $#@!ed up your mental healthcare is. (or your health care in general)


    Oh and j33fe in the UK its only hunting rifles and the odd shotgun that are legal. Can really only use them in specific places with others to hunt animals, or shoot foxes that go onto your land.

    Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
    Last edited by squirrelbo1; 12-17-2012 at 15:39.
    "Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life"

    Quote Originally Posted by dc89 View Post
    If this makes time travel possible I'll go forward in time voluntarily to get my hands on CoD34 and Final Fantasy Versus XIII. They come out in the same year.
    Quote Originally Posted by Seahawkk View Post
    I dont think i could take a dick, 1. im not gay and 2 one time i stuck my finger in my butt to see how it felt and i wasn't very pleased with the experience

  18. #366
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,005
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,896 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    but the point is a good upbringing and education isn't always enough. some people are just thick/emotional/unstable/etc. and because that will always be the case, regardless of education, guns should be a "right" that you earn, not deserve purely because you exist. i see absolutely nothing wrong with making gun ownership a challenge to achieve. i do like the driving analogy. the more thorough the test, driving or licensing, the fewer people die unecessarily because the tool itself, be it a car or gun, is more likely to be used in an appropriate manner.

    i really don't see why this should be any different.


    ** edit: my friend was very good at driving. had been since 14 round a field, he had great car control. but he failed his test 6 times (its harder here, we have circles in the middle of our roads). it wasn't that he was useless with the vehicle, it was his attitude when driving. too fast, too confident, too at ease with what he was doing. and that sort of judgement should translate to guns. you can have grown up around them, shot them all your life, but if you are so familiar with them that you don't show them the proper respect - for example locking them away, then perhaps you shouldn't have one, or should have to be penelised or re-educated in their use.
    I don't think you understand how a right works.



    Quote Originally Posted by squirrelbo1 View Post
    Somebody has to pay for it. In a country where police budgets are shrinking (its happening all over Europe too) and the right is calling for a reduction in taxes where is the money to train and maintain an officer on site every day ?


    Re read the thread. I'm not pro guns and my first argument was how $#@!ed up your mental healthcare is. (or your health care in general)


    Oh and j33fe in the UK its only hunting rifles and the odd shotgun that are legal. Can really only use them in specific places with others to hunt animals, or shoot foxes that go onto your land.

    Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2
    This:



    is legal in the uk.

  19. #367
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,633
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    1,078 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    A guy in los Angeles threatened a elementary school and guns were recovered

    Copycat

    Link. http://rt.com/usa/news/police-elemen...s-angeles-230/
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  20. #368
    I'm A Monster!
    efs5030's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Age
    26
    Posts
    5,572
    Rep Power
    64
    Points
    3,295 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Anybody who argues gun control doesn't understand people will be able to get guns whether or not they are legal or not


    Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

    Sig By FinalReaper.
    Socom/Trophy Card.



  21. #369
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,633
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    1,078 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Well it's safe to say man that's so funny. " safe to say " lol

    Anyway.. it will be up to who ever has the balls to ban guns or a epic tragedy to make guns banned for good
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  22. #370
    PSU Technical Advisor
    Vulgotha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Age
    24
    Posts
    15,953
    Rep Power
    144
    Points
    108,860 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    I don't think you understand how a right works.





    This:



    is legal in the uk.
    wtf, no way? That's legal in the UK? I know they're super strict about pistols and I guess anything that's "not for hunting"- but dude. That's a fully tricked out AR15 with a PIG flashhider... California wouldn't allow that thing, as is.


  23. #371
    Elite Guru
    J3ff3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Age
    31
    Posts
    5,230
    Rep Power
    81
    Points
    7,857 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    I don't think you understand how a right works.
    i do, i studied political science at uni, so know all about positive and negative liberty. i also know what your second amendment right is based on. OUR right in the UK to own and bare arms, believe it or not. it dates back about 300 years to our bill of rights. you have a right to arms, but it is tempered by LAW. exactly how the 'right' to drive a vehicle is (which is a right based on the idea of negative liberty). it isn't an unfettered ability to do what you want, even if it is 'enshrined' in your constitution - which is exactly why you can't own a tank, or drive a car through someones house. the law prohibits the former despite the second amendment, and prohibits the latter because it impacts others. your laws, however, aren't strict enough on everyday use or on access.

    it really isn't that complicated. laws are sensible counter balance to rights, and often enable them. why? because your right by its very nature affects the liberty and rights of others.

    it really isn't, or shouldn't be, as simple as "the founding fathers said this, therefore it is my unalienable right to do it". this is especially true when you look at WHY the second amendment was created. you have laws to make rights applicable to modern environments.


    This:



    is legal in the uk.
    i seriously doubt it. but if it is you wouldn't ever see it outside co19, certainly not in the hands of a citizen. again, laws prohibit it, despite the fact that we also have a legal 'right' to bare arms.
    Last edited by J3ff3; 12-17-2012 at 21:43.
    Got YLOD? In the UK? I'll buy it off you.

  24. Likes Admartian likes this post
  25. #372
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,005
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,896 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    i do, i studied political science at uni, so know all about positive and negative liberty. i also know what your second amendment right is based on. OUR right in the UK to own and bare arms, believe it or not. it dates back about 300 years to our bill of rights. you have a right to arms, but it is tempered by LAW. exactly how the 'right' to drive a vehicle is (which is a right based on the idea of negative liberty). it isn't an unfettered ability to do what you want, even if it is 'enshrined' in your constitution - which is exactly why you can't own a tank, or drive a car through someones house. the law prohibits the former despite the second amendment, and prohibits the latter because it impacts others. your laws, however, aren't strict enough on everyday use or on access.

    it really isn't that complicated. laws are sensible counter balance to rights, and often enable them. why? because your right by its very nature affects the liberty and rights of others.

    it really isn't, or shouldn't be, as simple as "the founding fathers said this, therefore it is my unalienable right to do it". you have laws to make rights applicable to modern environments.




    i doubt it. but if it is you wouldn't ever see it outside co19. again, laws prohibit it, despite the fact that we also have a legal 'right' to bare arms.
    The bill of rights in our constitution simply reaffirms our god given/natural born rights. The government does not give us our rights. The BOR was placed in in our constitution because there were those that believed that even though it should be obvious to an enlightened individual, it would be a good idea to have certain rights explicitly stated just in case. Turns out they were right to do such a thing.

    The founders may have crafted the constitution with the laws in other countries in mind, but they saw the flaws in those other laws and used them as an example to avoid the shortcomings of those laws.

    Perhaps you need to read our second amendment again:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, [B]the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed[/B].
    There was debate to whether application of the rights was to the people or the militia, this is my response:



    In addition it has been reaffirmed by our supreme court in the Heller case.

    b. “Keep and bear Arms.” We move now from the
    holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of the
    right: “to keep and bear Arms.”
    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
    their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
    different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
    Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
    of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
    English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
    Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
    defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
    defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
    at or strike another.”
    1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary
    (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
    of the English Language (182 (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter
    Webster) (similar).
    8 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
    Opinion of the Court
    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
    were not specifically designed for military use and were
    not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s
    legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
    “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on
    Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An
    Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
    p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
    (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke,
    42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts
    construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus
    limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
    of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
    stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
    The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
    the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).
    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
    that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
    are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
    constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
    Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
    e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
    849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
    forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
    35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
    facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
    even those that were not in existence at the time of the
    founding.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf
    And by the way, you can own a tank in the US, assuming you have the means to afford one. Legally driving it down the street is another matter.

    I suggest you thoroughly read the decision of our supreme court in the Heller and McDonald cases and revise your statements.

    As to the picture I posted. That firearm is completely legal in the UK to own and use (for example target shooting). It is manufactured by a UK company. It has been modified to comply with UK laws.

  26. #373
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,953
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    63,646 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by J3ff3 View Post
    i do, i studied political science at uni, so know all about positive and negative liberty. i also know what your second amendment right is based on. OUR right in the UK to own and bare arms, believe it or not. it dates back about 300 years to our bill of rights. you have a right to arms, but it is tempered by LAW. exactly how the 'right' to drive a vehicle is (which is a right based on the idea of negative liberty). it isn't an unfettered ability to do what you want, even if it is 'enshrined' in your constitution - which is exactly why you can't own a tank, or drive a car through someones house. the law prohibits the former despite the second amendment, and prohibits the latter because it impacts others. your laws, however, aren't strict enough on everyday use or on access.

    it really isn't that complicated. laws are sensible counter balance to rights, and often enable them. why? because your right by its very nature affects the liberty and rights of others.

    it really isn't, or shouldn't be, as simple as "the founding fathers said this, therefore it is my unalienable right to do it". this is especially true when you look at WHY the second amendment was created. you have laws to make rights applicable to modern environments.




    i seriously doubt it. but if it is you wouldn't ever see it outside co19, certainly not in the hands of a citizen. again, laws prohibit it, despite the fact that we also have a legal 'right' to bare arms.

    It is legal because its .22 caliber

  27. #374
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    8,005
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,896 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    It is legal because its .22 caliber
    There are version that are .223 caliber (among others) that are also legal.

  28. #375
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,953
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    63,646 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I know the max is .23

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.