Shootings At Connecticut Elementary School

[claud3]

So stand your ground law is fine

And

A nation of gun owners is on, when they are shooting each other over ps3's, shoes, dresses I mean low key items here...

And

Its ok to shoot innocent people because they were carrying skettles in their hand...

Here in the UK aka northern Ireland, we have organizations called the IRA, CIRA, NIRA, UVF, UFF, UDA, LVF,

These organizations kill each other and knee cap people for crimes against their own people aka the IRA will knee cap or put a bullet in the head of their own kind aka Catholic and the UFF will knee cap or put the bullet in the head of a loyalist..

So in other countries we deal with crime by guns in the hands of others...

So you know the organizations I mentioned are criminals to, but works

In the states they are in the hands of everyone.... Think

[-Kwesnoth-]

In the states they are in the hands of everyone.... Think

How about you think, about your own fucking country.

If guns were in the hands of everyone(which they aren't), then there would be a lot less crime. Because even if a bad guy has a gun, he doesn't know if there are five other people next to him with guns. A criminal might think twice before committing a crime if a random citizen could put a bullet in him.

[J3ff3]

So basically you are saying because it can't make things worse (when we have evidence that is contrary to this point, but lets ignore it for a second) we should do it anyways just because?

Nevermind the effect it has on infringing/eliminating peoples second amendment rights. Or the economic effect it will have on gun manufacturers, guns stores, ammunition manufacturers and companies that make various kinds of gun accessories.

Finally we have the financial effects it has on gun owners being forced to give up their arms/ammunition for no compensation (or a pittance at best).


Sure that sounds like an excellent idea, lets get right on that.

1. you've got poor evidence based on unsound bit-part legislation
2. the 'second amendment rights' argument. plenty of countries survive with out this "right" and are arguably better for it.
3. if you think economic concerns are worth it, don't complain when it backfires.

the point is it is a long term fix. you can't try it, poorly, for 10 years then claim it doesn't work.

[djpenny]

How about you think, about your own fucking country.

If guns were in the hands of everyone(which they aren't), then there would be a lot less crime. Because even if a bad guy has a gun, he doesn't know if there are five other people next to him with guns. A criminal might think twice before committing a crime if a random citizen could put a bullet in him.

i don't think that plan is working to well

[-Kwesnoth-]

i don't think that plan is working to well

That plan doesn't work cause it doesn't exist.

[claud3]

How about you think, about your own fucking country.

If guns were in the hands of everyone(which they aren't), then there would be a lot less crime. Because even if a bad guy has a gun, he doesn't know if there are five other people next to him with guns. A criminal might think twice before committing a crime if a random citizen could put a bullet in him.

You really don't get it do you....

If I am sitting with gun on me and a criminal wants to commit a crime... He has several options for him to use..

And thats a flaw in your argument

Oh and one more thing... Northern Ireland over the last 200 years under British rule... people aka innocence that have died is over 3,047..

So you take that and match it to a nation of 320+million and 270million guns... With the rate of deaths per state

The maths would not work out well for the states

[J3ff3]

You really don't get it do you....

If I am sitting with gun on me and a criminal wants to commit a crime... He has several options for him to use..

And thats a flaw in your argument

Oh and one more thing... Northern Ireland over the last 200 years under British rule... people aka innocence that have died is over 3,047..

So you take that and match it to a nation of 320+million and 270million guns... With the rate of deaths per state

The maths would not work out well for the states

northern ireland has nothing to do with this. its a completely erroneous comparison.

[djpenny]

That plan doesn't work cause it doesn't exist.

over 300 million guns that usa gov knows aboot thats like 1 gun per pesron in usa
you take away all the pistols and assault rifles , guns that u don't hunt with
i bet over 200 million guns be off the streets and your homes/ school well be safer

i don't even lock my door to my house that's how safe i feel in Canada


edit look FPSrussia videos 90% of his guns a normal usa guy can buy
look at this gun YOU CAN BUY THIS but why a person needs this gun, protect his home from robbers?

[claud3]

I know, just saying

A nation with no guns in homes. Can limit high death rates and trigger happy people


Guns bring the sense of everyone is against me and I need no I most protect myself, my family and my country...


You have a belief system that is in every speech every person of importance and semi importance makes and that is God and freedom


Life does not revolve around these two things, as their is no proof they both exist.

Your flag is a symbol of struggle and creation and yet you spit on it for what you have did with your nation...

The forefathers did not want a nation of self obsorbed people that took the writings of the past and interpreted them in a way that they did not want.

You cry the forefathers writings and yet they are puzzle to you, so you make your own versions of them

[MATRIX 2]

1. you've got poor evidence based on unsound bit-part legislation
2. the 'second amendment rights' argument. plenty of countries survive with out this "right" and are arguably better for it.
3. if you think economic concerns are worth it, don't complain when it backfires.

the point is it is a long term fix. you can't try it, poorly, for 10 years then claim it doesn't work.

#1 No we don't. Where is your evidence?

Here is but one example:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

#2: No other country has legislation equivalent to the 2nd amendment in scope and a comparable gun culture. Nevermind our own unique history.

#3 Do you have any idea what the cost (to the federal govt) of just enforcing such laws? In our present fiscal condition, there is no way we could even afford it.

Clearly you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

There is no other country on earth that is comparable to the USA regarding various demographics. So to try an compare legislation that worked in one country claiming it will work in the US is foolish at best and idiotic at worst. This is just like the socialized healthcare argument? The largest country with socialized healthcare in europe is Germany with 80 million residents. In the world? japan with 120 million residents. Yet you would say since it can be done in those countries it shouldn't be a problem for the USA and its 310 million residents.

Believe what you want, but this line of thinking is pretty stupid. Gun control will not work in the US. It will not solve our crime problem. We are a very unique case and we require our own solution.

And if what you say was true (even for europe) why is switzerland doing so well with their high level of gun ownership?

Answer that.

[Vulgotha]

the uk.

i'll admit that we're in a much easier position, because our gun laws have been in place for over 100 years, but it is generally because when we have had a disaster (dunblane, hungerford) we've altered the licencing laws accordingly.

you can count our masacres on one hand, and regardless of violent crime stats, that is important.

I don't agree with your conclusions. Massacres can happen well apart from gun ownership rates.

See here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8650626.stm


You have a culture which is less prone to wanton acts of social violence perhaps, however you came to achieve this (I'm not qualified to make that analysis). That is exemplary. But firearm adoption has had little part to play. Still, your country is exceptionally violent for such a regulated society. Your statement that your country is an example of a place where such legislation 'has worked', does not withstand scrutiny in my humble opinion.

Disenfranchised male youth, in my opinion, is something worth looking into to figure some of this out. Especially in first world nations such as ours..

Look I don't want to get sucked into another "US sucks cuz guns and Europe rules" thing. Just look at the studies ok? Matrix just provided one that I found a bit ago and even made a thread on- it is hardly the first. There are many like it.

And it isn't as though it has some kind of pro-gun bent based on the institution- I mean it's Harvard.

I can provide other sources too if you'd like. Suffice it to say gun control just doesn't work. Why? Because it isn't the cause of the crime. It has literally nothing to do with the "WHY" behind it all, and even if you remove one "HOW" they will always substitute it with another.

For instance, you simply can't stop the construction of homemade explosives. All you need is fertilizer and gasoline- good to go. You cannot regulate away the danger of sharp or blunted weapons..

This is a band aid, and a poor one at that. It does nothing to address the root of the problem- it's nothing more than society refusing to take responsibility for its gross failings. Because if you blame an inanimate object you escape the hard conclusion that perhaps parents suck- that an entire generation has failed its youth.

Messier still, it skirts around the problem of what to do with those who are mentally ill. Do we deprive them of their rights because of a probable risk? Do we institutionalize them? If we give them help, who pays for it?

It's a gateway to horrible things this irresponsible generation of parents just doesn't want to hear about.

It's just too damn easy to blame video games, guns, and movies.


And people can say, well aren't video games and movies a valid example of how society is twisting youth? Well that is possible- but not because of the content arguably, rather our inability to raise our children to distinguish between reality and fiction (again parenting) and allowing them to engage in this media without paying any heed to the variety of rating systems and parental controls that technology allows us.

Irresponsible. That's all there is to it. The baby boomers are perhaps the greatest losers in the history of the world, a generation marked by their ferocious failures and unworthy of any sympathy.

Let us not take their failures with us to the generation after. To our children. Let's stop this pointless game of displacing blame and actually get down to the real meat here. However unsavory it may be.

[claud3]

Ok i want to say sorry for my post... I reread my last post and I attacked your country unfairly and your flag

Saying you spit on it for your self absorbed acts... I take it back and sorry

[Rapture]

How about you think, about your own fucking country.

Why the unprovoked hostility?

If guns were in the hands of everyone(which they aren't), then there would be a lot less crime. Because even if a bad guy has a gun, he doesn't know if there are five other people next to him with guns. A criminal might think twice before committing a crime if a random citizen could put a bullet in him.

But you don't really know that. What criminal commits a crime with people around that can interfere? All that would happen is that a criminal would change how they do things.

[admartian]

I don't normally incite violence against people, but I desperately want a gunman to shoot these pigs to death.

Are these the Westboro looneys that think that God wanted this to happen?

Hopefully Anon tears all of them new ones.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Why the unprovoked hostility?

But you don't really know that. What criminal commits a crime with people around that can interfere? All that would happen is that a criminal would change how they do things.

Gets pretty fucking annoying is all I'll say.

Anything that would force a criminal to change his plans is good. And how can a criminal always account for there not being anyone who can interfere? He can't, its too many variables to consider.

[Vulgotha]

Going to quote my best friend, who's a cop (he sometimes posts here), who wrote this up today. Here are his two cents as an American citizen, gun owner and LEO:

The sole purpose of a firearm is not "to kill." The purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile at a high rate of speed. It is the current most technologically advanced object in a technology tree that more or less started with throwing rocks, progressed to the sling, the slingshot, the bow, the crossbow, the cannon, the blunderbuss, the musket, and so on. The only real difference is the level of technology involved in each. What makes the bow viewable as primarily a recreational tool but a firearm as something different? Or even an antique firearm as opposed to a modern one? The answer is simple: it's what the police/military currently use. Are any of those other things less lethal? No. Are any of them less appropriate to use to kill something? It depends on your purpose. Honestly, there are a variety of situations where a bow is actually preferable to a gun. The issue isn't lethality, it's what we see soldiers holding or cops holstering. The issue isn't danger, as any of those things can severely maim, injure, or kill someone if misused. There are also a plethora of more dangerous activities than carrying or using guns, such as driving a car, or going to the doctor, both of which claim vastly more lives per year than firearms.

No, what we have as a society is a stigma that disarmament is somehow more morally appropriate than bearing arms. This is the first time in history in which a man's weapons were not only for personal protection, but were also a point of pride. From the sword of a samurai, to the rapier of a nobleman, to the revolver of the cattleman, a man's personal weapon has been a part of his legacy. Society today tells us that somehow this is uncouth behavior. Be it from the feminization of society or the unwillingness of modern adults to take personal responsibility for their actions, weapons in general, but firearms more specifically, have been villainized in the media. Defending yourself has become politically incorrect both on the moral and physical front. As a result, the natural inclination of our society is to become a collective of victims. Gone are the days of individualism and pride in one's ability to care for himself. Now we are a society that begs for handouts and sues at the drop of a hat.

Symptomatic of that deeper issue is the stigma about firearms. Again, it's not an issue of lethality or danger, as people partake in lethal or dangerous activities on a daily basis without a second thought. For whatever reason, whenever someone sees a gun in the hands of a soldier or cop, they feel safe, but in the hands of another citizen, they feel threatened. Somehow society has this idea that those classes of people are different. From personal experience, I can say authoritatively that we are not. The only difference between me as a cop and me as a private citizen is that once I was given a badge, I was officially employed by a government entity. The common argument is “cops are trained, citizens aren't.” Honestly, that argument is mostly just misleading. Cops do receive training on how to use their duty weapon. They also must prove their ability to shoot said weapon before being allowed to carry it on duty. This may come as a surprise to many, but so do concealed carry permit holders. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, one must take a class on pertinent laws and regulations, as well as on function of a firearm. They must then demonstrate their ability to use their firearm. Then they go through background checks before being issued their permit. All in all, police qualification is only marginally more stringent when it comes to the weapons that are carried.

To step beyond just guns for a moment. As I said before, firearms are the current weapon stigma, but more often than not they are not the weapon of choice for criminals. Precisely because of the increased difficulty in procuring them illegally as well as the increased charges that will be made when they are caught. In fact, the most common weapon used in crimes are the criminal's bare hands. In reality, criminals will use anything and everything available to them to assault someone, from kitchen knives to potted plants, and even to a shopping bag, those are examples of weapons I have personally seen used to commit crimes. Similarly, in our jail, we routinely confiscate every day items such as bars of soap, socks, and toothbrushes which have been weaponized. The deranged do not discriminate by the intended purpose of an item, they will weaponize anything they can get their hands on.

Another common misconception is that a firearm is a complicated affair which takes training and mastery to use. While it takes training to achieve a level of proficiency, as with any task, a firearm isn't even as complicated or difficult to use as an automobile. This also accounts for why far more people die in car accidents than they do in firearm accidents. Guns don't just magically go off and kill people. As a matter of fact, in one day, 84,999,989 gun owning Americans don't kill anyone. The reason this is never reported is because it's not newsworthy. People going about their daily business not harming anyone and living out their lives peacefully will not give the media the viewership they need corporately to stay afloat. What makes the news is when a lone man with a weapon (remember, guns are the hot button) manages to take the lives of many innocents. If someone stops him prematurely (like in the Clackamas Town Center), then it's not nearly as “big news,” so coverages is dropped in favor of something that will catch people's attention for longer. But we as law enforcement don't stop paying attention. There isn't a cop in the country who would rather read a story about 26 dead including 18 children, so we pay attention to the less “big” stories. We go on calls where acts of violence have been committed. We respond when someone is in fear of their life. We see firsthand how the criminal element works, and we look for ways to stop them. As a result, we see what happens when the responsible stand up against the reckless. We see that, hey, in this attempted mass shooting, one man in the crowd with a CCW not only used his pistol to stop a man with a rifle from killing God only knows how many people, but he did it without even firing a shot.

Additionally, and I won't elaborate too extensively on how, criminals don't care if they can legally own guns or not. Point in case, the young man who killed those elementary students stole the weapons he used. They were not legally obtained. Gun control laws told him “no, you can't have these,” so he went out and procured them all on his own. The same gun control laws that said, “no, you can't take these into a school” were also ignored, along with the laws that said, “no, you can't slaughter 26 people like animals just because you feel like it.” These are not the actions of a responsible person. These are the actions of a monster.

In summation, though I could say far more on the subject:

-Guns are not “killing machines,” as is frequently insinuated. They're a piece of equipment.
-There's nothing “special” about a cop that makes us magically capable of handling a gun responsibly where any other citizen cannot. Cops make mistakes and other citizens do things right. We're only human, just like that CCW holder. If you're afraid he's going to randomly shoot you because you made him angry, there's no reason you shouldn't hold the same fear of a cop. It's an irrational fear, but you ought to at least be consistent.
-If you're afraid of that CCW holder using his gun on you, you should also be afraid of him using his shoe, car keys, pocket knife, or anything else in arm's length on you.

[admartian]

How about you think, about your own fucking country.

This is exactly why it's annoying to get into ANYTHING in this forum. Too many chest-thumping, quick-triggered (pun intended) people that think because a poster is against them on a certain issue (in this case; gun laws) that they're literally trying to pry them away from you.

Let's say that they';re right - hypothetically - and that we agreed that this should be done.

Nothing is going to happen out of it.


Chill the fuck out people. This is not the first time there's an issue that is being discussed by a Yank and non-Yank and someone freaks the fuck out.

THe US government - if they happen to read this thread (which is about as likely as some of you guys calming the F down ) - are not going to suddenly change the law.

So just keep your cool, everyone. This is exactly the type of post that can derail a thread and make it a (some of the) US posters vs. Rest of the World.

[Rapture]

Anything that would force a criminal to change his plans is good. And how can a criminal always account for there not being anyone who can interfere? He can't, its too many variables to consider.

That's already true for criminals yet crime still happens. If a thief is going to mug a lone person in an alley, how is anything changed just because the citizenry is now armed? The thief is still in charge of the situation and the other person is still in danger. Generally you're not changing anything here. I agree that in some scenarios it may deter a crime being committed, but I certainly wouldn't say it would be lowered by a large amount.

I think the best way to fix things is just to better our nation as a society and our culture.

[-Kwesnoth-]

This is exactly why it's annoying to get into ANYTHING in this forum. Too many chest-thumping, quick-triggered (pun intended) people that think because a poster is against them on a certain issue (in this case; gun laws) that they're literally trying to pry them away from you.

Let's say that they';re right - hypothetically - and that we agreed that this should be done.

Nothing is going to happen out of it.


Chill the fuck out people. This is not the first time there's an issue that is being discussed by a Yank and non-Yank and someone freaks the fuck out.

THe US government - if they happen to read this thread (which is about as likely as some of you guys calming the F down ) - are not going to suddenly change the law.

So just keep your cool, everyone. This is exactly the type of post that can derail a thread and make it a (some of the) US posters vs. Rest of the World.

Until you become the lord of the internet, I shall act, post, and express my opinion in whatever foul tempered, mannered, and worded method I see fit. And you'll do good to remember that.

That's already true for criminals yet crime still happens. If a thief is going to mug a lone person in an alley, how is anything changed just because the citizenry is now armed? The thief is still in charge of the situation and the other person is still in danger. Generally you're not changing anything here. I agree that in some scenarios it may deter a crime being committed, but I certainly wouldn't say it would be lowered by a large amount.

I think the best way to fix things is just to better our nation as a society and our culture.

Thinking that any one plan is going to stop crime is ridiculous. It just is. But wouldn't you(as a criminal) perhaps have a tint of fear on your mind if you walked into a bank to rob it, and know that there is a chance the teller could have a gun? Or one of the people in the bank? I know I sure as hell would.

To ban guns, is to remove guns from good people. If a criminal wants a gun, there are ways around the law, no matter how strict it becomes.

[claud3]

This is exactly why it's annoying to get into ANYTHING in this forum. Too many chest-thumping, quick-triggered (pun intended) people that think because a poster is against them on a certain issue (in this case; gun laws) that they're literally trying to pry them away from you.

Let's say that they';re right - hypothetically - and that we agreed that this should be done.

Nothing is going to happen out of it.


Chill the fuck out people. This is not the first time there's an issue that is being discussed by a Yank and non-Yank and someone freaks the fuck out.

THe US government - if they happen to read this thread (which is about as likely as some of you guys calming the F down ) - are not going to suddenly change the law.

So just keep your cool, everyone. This is exactly the type of post that can derail a thread and make it a (some of the) US posters vs. Rest of the World.

I agree, we need to chill and understand that we should not be taking this out on each other. But we should remember the innocent people that died

[Yuuichi]

I don't normally incite violence against people, but I desperately want a gunman to shoot these pigs to death.

Funny that the church calls itself Christians yet the woman called God Jehovah which is something only Jehovah witness do.

[admartian]

That's already true for criminals yet crime still happens. If a thief is going to mug a lone person in an alley, how is anything changed just because the citizenry is now armed? The thief is still in charge of the situation and the other person is still in danger. Generally you're not changing anything here. I agree that in some scenarios it may deter a crime being committed, but I certainly wouldn't say it would be lowered by a large amount.

I think the best way to fix things is just to better our nation as a society and our culture.

I tihnk that can be said for anyone really.

My issue here I think, is minimising these things as opposed to having them escalate to something like this because a gun si much more (unfortunately in this case) efficient than pretty much any weapon that isn't a bomb.

I can accept that the world isn't perfect - but it's hard when you could, theortically at least, eliminate or exponentially minimise these things in the first place. Though harder practiced than said; especially for nation like the US, where it is ingrainedinto their psyche.

TO which that point I can understand regardless of my views.

[-Kwesnoth-]

Your flag is a symbol of struggle and creation and yet you spit on it for what you have did with your nation...

The forefathers did not want a nation of self obsorbed people that took the writings of the past and interpreted them in a way that they did not want.

I agree, we need to chill and understand that we should not be taking this out on each other. But we should remember the innocent people that died

Yeah..right.

[admartian]

Until you become the lord of the internet, I shall act, post, and express my opinion in whatever foul tempered, mannered, and worded method I see fit. And you'll do good to remember that.

.

*Salutes in front of the American Flag playing to * (My song? That one form Die Hard 4 ).



Seriously though, that's your response? lol no one was telling you or anyone what to do. Just a suggestion for it to not to escalate. Sheesh.

See.what.I.mean.people?





I was only trying to settle thigns down. But ok... Didn't know you had to have a special badge for that.


Even talking about things like this REALLY strikes a fucking nerve with some of you guys -not generalising, but going on what has been posted on these forums for the 6 years I've been here. (or could just be we got the worst lot? ). This, religion, politics, etc.

Can't talk about any of this stuff without getting hostile. It's a shame.

[claud3]

Mate I said sorry for my actions of attacking your flag and nation

I was caught up in the moment and i just went for the one thing you all love...
Again sorry for my actions