Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates

Notices
For all updates, view the main page.

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more in-depth topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.



Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #126    
Old December 17th, 2012 (10:02 PM).
FreakyLocz14's Avatar
FreakyLocz14
Conservative Patriot
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
A tragedy is a terrible thing to waste, huh? Every time that there's a shooting, gun-grabbing lefties try to use it as an excuse to erode the civil rights of Americans.

You want to talk about gun control? Is it just a coincidence that all of these shootings have happened in "Gun-Free Zones"? That fact just proves my point that when law-abiding citizens aren't armed because the law prohibits it, it just makes them easier targets for homicidal maniacs.

Yes, it is tragic and sad that people lose their lives that day. With no intent to the belittle the tragedy, I'm frustrated that there are children dying every day from war and poverty, but the liberal media only reports on the deaths that they think will stir-up a rallying cry for the anti-gun crowd.
Reply With Quote
  #127    
Old December 18th, 2012 (06:56 AM). Edited December 18th, 2012 by TRIFORCE89.
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by FreakyLocz14:
A tragedy is a terrible thing to waste, huh? Every time that there's a shooting, gun-grabbing lefties try to use it as an excuse to erode the civil rights of Americans.

You want to talk about gun control? Is it just a coincidence that all of these shootings have happened in "Gun-Free Zones"? That fact just proves my point that when law-abiding citizens aren't armed because the law prohibits it, it just makes them easier targets for homicidal maniacs.

Yes, it is tragic and sad that people lose their lives that day. With no intent to the belittle the tragedy, I'm frustrated that there are children dying every day from war and poverty, but the liberal media only reports on the deaths that they think will stir-up a rallying cry for the anti-gun crowd.
Uh-huh. Don't be so holier than thou. Because on the flip side, there's people on the "right" at the same time calling for more guns or blaming everything from video games to gay people. They're opportunistic too.

Also, its not the "liberal media". I was flicking through channels last night and came across the Canadian-equivalent of FOX. As much as I don't like the channel usually (despite leaning that way. I find the loud tabloid format annoying and obnoxious and I don't like the lack of fair representation from not just people on the left but from progressive conservatives too), I stayed on it and watched, because they weren't saying what probably a lot of people would have expected them to say. A lot of the sentiment I share below was also echoed there. They aren't the "liberal media". Like their American counterparts, they make a career badmouthing the liberal media. And yet, they had a different argument from what you'd expect. American conservatives are just... a different breed than say Canadian or U.K. conservatives.

Just about all of Canada is a gun-free zone. Yet we don't have this problem. Elsewhere too. There are shootings, by criminals, usually with other criminals, using illegal guns (you can own a gun here. Just... ordinary citizens just don't really bother) and the police handle it accordingly. You'll never be able to wipe out criminal activity. No amount of gun control does that. But what something like limiting the amount or kind of weapons you do have does is prevent situations like what happened - where a crazy person has easy access to a deadly weapon.

The mother was a gun person. She wasn't in a "gun-free zone". And assuming the gunman was fully armed at the time, she still had access to three weapons (some of which were also automatic weapons). Not to speak ill of the dead, but didn't she do a wonderful job at stopping him? More guns aren't the answer.

For the most part, a civilian only ever gets involved in this kind of thing when they are an off-duty cop. They have training and experience. They're not going to be operating in fear. Even then though, the police miss a lot. Like the Empire State Building shooting earlier this year. The cops hit a lot of civilians.

The gunman had a vest on anyway. Unless a teacher had amazing aim and speed in such an intense situation, he wasn't going down. And I'd rather the teacher focus on protecting the children like they did.

Also guns regularly in schools? Really? Because its beyond the realm of imagination that a student might get a hold of it or that a teacher may go postal one day?

There's an argument to made, perhaps, for armed security in schools (and elsewhere). But, even then... they get comfortable. Complacent. Months or years of no issues, and they'll be comfortable. Off their guard. Chatting with someone in the front office. Might be better. Might be placebo. I don't think it'd make a difference (not opposed to it though, just don't think it'd work. But by all means try. Better than doing nothing)

I recognize that guns are a part of American culture. They're your right. I don't accept the answer is simply more guns or no guns. That doesn't fly. Especially there. A compromise, I think, would be... you get one hand gun. No automatics or semi-automatics or anything else. And follow Finland's example, where if there's anything, the slightest hint of the potential for trouble in your house - the house loses its guns. So, if there's anyone with any kind of mental issue in the house, the guns are gone. Heck, here if you're applying for a gun here they ask you if you've been fired lately. While CT may have had stricter gun laws, they're still laxer than a lot of the world. Look what guns he (or his mother, rather) still had access to and the amount.

I agree on your last point though. Far more children die in Africa for a number of reasons on a daily basis. Don't really like that people don't seem to care about that. But, I guess they only do when it strikes closer to home?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128    
Old December 18th, 2012 (08:02 AM).
Bluerang1's Avatar
Bluerang1
pin pin
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hiougi City
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
The thing is, these children and teachers didn't expect to die. They weren't starving, they weren't in a war zone. They were in a scholl where they were meant to be safe. That's what makes this so sad. But yes, a lot of children are dieing as I type.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 1204-0601-9485
Pokémon X
Post on my wall if you add me so I can add you!
Reply With Quote
  #129    
Old December 18th, 2012 (08:24 PM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by FreakyLocz14:
You want to talk about gun control? Is it just a coincidence that all of these shootings have happened in "Gun-Free Zones"? That fact just proves my point that when law-abiding citizens aren't armed because the law prohibits it, it just makes them easier targets for homicidal maniacs.
Shootings don't just happen in gun-free zones. It just happens that gun-free zones tend to be public places like schools or malls or movie theatres. There are countless shootings and deaths in places where people can legally have guns, but because those shootings are limited to one or a few people at a time they don't get media coverage like mass shootings.

The sad thing is that everyone, everywhere, is an easy target for gun violence. I chalk this up to the high levels of gun ownership, relative lack of support for the mentally ill, and just a violent and confrontational society. (Obviously speaking about America here.)

Quote originally posted by Bluerang1:
The thing is, these children and teachers didn't expect to die. They weren't starving, they weren't in a war zone. They were in a scholl where they were meant to be safe. That's what makes this so sad. But yes, a lot of children are dieing as I type.
This is why it's shocking to us. We don't expect dozens of children to die in America. We know that children are dying every day across the world, from violence to hunger. That is tragic, but in a sense not surprising because of the conditions that they live in. We can argue about how morally right or wrong we are to accept that this happens, but it isn't the same thing to compare the violent deaths of children in a place they, by all rights, should be perfectly safe, to children who are dying from famine or something else. When you're somewhat expecting that harm can come to you you're on some level looking out for it, trying to avoid it.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #130    
Old December 18th, 2012 (08:46 PM). Edited December 18th, 2012 by Mr. X.
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Two more tragedys, thankfully prevented.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250160/West-Kearns-Elementary-Student-gun-classmate-s-head-parents-encouraged-protection.html

Parents urged their child to carry a lethal weapon, for his protection. First thing he does? Puts it to the head of another student, and theatens to kill her.

Thankfully, the weapon wasn't loaded at the time. And thankfully someone reported him before he decided to make true on his threat.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Ind-Man-with-47-Guns-Arrested-After-School-Threat-183701891.html

Man threatens to murder his wife and shoot up her place of work. Her place of work is a Elementary School.

Edit - The price of freedom is paid for with the blood of Patriots.

I suppose that conservative ideals consider, very young, children to be patriots. Rejoice Conservatives! The blood of children has paid for your freedom to own weapons of murder!

Tch. And people wonder why I dislike conservatives.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #131    
Old December 18th, 2012 (08:50 PM).
Zet's Avatar
Zet
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Jolly
Quote originally posted by FreakyLocz14:
A tragedy is a terrible thing to waste, huh? Every time that there's a shooting, gun-grabbing lefties try to use it as an excuse to erode the civil rights of Americans.

You want to talk about gun control? Is it just a coincidence that all of these shootings have happened in "Gun-Free Zones"? That fact just proves my point that when law-abiding citizens aren't armed because the law prohibits it, it just makes them easier targets for homicidal maniacs.

Yes, it is tragic and sad that people lose their lives that day. With no intent to the belittle the tragedy, I'm frustrated that there are children dying every day from war and poverty, but the liberal media only reports on the deaths that they think will stir-up a rallying cry for the anti-gun crowd.
Ah yes, I guess those recent pro-gun articles I read recently were just figments of my imagination. Everyone is doing these things for safety and the wrong reasons, don't go blaming one side when your side is also doing things for the wrong reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #132    
Old December 18th, 2012 (10:14 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
And another fine example of how our current laws give guns to people who shouldn't have them...

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/12/after_shooting_a_whiney_costum.php

Man shoots a person. In a resteraunt. Because the guy pushed him.

He was a legal gun owner, had a conceled carry permit. His defence is the stand your ground law.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #133    
Old December 18th, 2012 (11:09 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by Mr. X:
Tch. And people wonder why I dislike conservatives.
Hey! :( Don't be so broad brushy
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134    
Old December 21st, 2012 (01:36 AM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Stricter gun laws would do absolutely nothing except render law-abiding citizens defenseless. You know what would have really helped prevent this? Training every single member of the faculty in the safe operation of a handgun and requiring them to carry at all times while on school property.

So many people seem to think banning guns would stop crazy people from killing. There are PLENTY of ways to kill large groups of people without using a gun. I could probably name three or four ways just using standard household chemicals and materials available from a grocery store, and I know next to nothing about that sort of thing (it's not exactly something I do research on). Or you could use a car, for that matter; there's a video out there of a guy from I think Brazil where he runs over a bunch of bikers on parade in the street. It's not like a gun is the only way to cause large amounts of suffering; I guarantee someone who wants to kill a large group of people can find a way to do so without a gun. You know what can't be done effectively without a gun? Defending yourself from a crazy person with a lethal weapon.

Gun control laws are strict enough in the US. People abroad seem to think any idiot can buy a gun and carry in public; that's not true at all except in maybe some of the worse parts of the major cities. Background checks are required, licenses are required, and as far as I know, every single state requires some sort of training in the safe operation of the firearm.

If you want to really prevent crazy people from killing lots of people, make it easier and cheaper for them to receive mental assistance from trained professionals. And try to get rid of some of the stigma associated with getting that assistance.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]
Reply With Quote
  #135    
Old December 21st, 2012 (06:16 AM).
Cosmotone8
silhouette of the past
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Boston, MA, USA, Earth, Sun Solar System, Milky Way Galaxy, Universe
Gender: Male
Nature: Careful
Quote originally posted by twocows:
Stricter gun laws would do absolutely nothing except render law-abiding citizens defenseless. You know what would have really helped prevent this? Training every single member of the faculty in the safe operation of a handgun and requiring them to carry at all times while on school property.

So many people seem to think banning guns would stop crazy people from killing. There are PLENTY of ways to kill large groups of people without using a gun. I could probably name three or four ways just using standard household chemicals and materials available from a grocery store, and I know next to nothing about that sort of thing (it's not exactly something I do research on). Or you could use a car, for that matter; there's a video out there of a guy from I think Brazil where he runs over a bunch of bikers on parade in the street. It's not like a gun is the only way to cause large amounts of suffering; I guarantee someone who wants to kill a large group of people can find a way to do so without a gun. You know what can't be done effectively without a gun? Defending yourself from a crazy person with a lethal weapon.

Gun control laws are strict enough in the US. People abroad seem to think any idiot can buy a gun and carry in public; that's not true at all except in maybe some of the worse parts of the major cities. Background checks are required, licenses are required, and as far as I know, every single state requires some sort of training in the safe operation of the firearm.

If you want to really prevent crazy people from killing lots of people, make it easier and cheaper for them to receive mental assistance from trained professionals. And try to get rid of some of the stigma associated with getting that assistance.
Who says that the faculty wouldn't have turned around and done the same thing if they all held guns? Also its not like Sandy Hook is a major elementary school either. If this had happened in some major city it might be different. But some rural town? Nobody would have thought that it would be necessary.
While guns may not be the "only way to cause large amounts of suffering" they are the most likely means of doing so. When people want to commit murder,I assume most think, "Oh, I'm going to go shoot or stab a bunch of people." I doubt that most would think to plow people down in a parade.
Other than that I agree with everything you're saying, especially the last part about mental assistance.
__________________
I'm a silhouette, asking every now and then
Is it over yet? Will I ever feel again?
I'm a silhouette, chasing rainbows on my own
But the more I try to move on, the more I feel alone
So I watch the summer stars to lead me home.

Reply With Quote
  #136    
Old December 21st, 2012 (08:56 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by twocows:
Stricter gun laws would do absolutely nothing except render law-abiding citizens defenseless. You know what would have really helped prevent this? Training every single member of the faculty in the safe operation of a handgun and requiring them to carry at all times while on school property.
Are you Wayne LaPierre?

Quote originally posted by twocows:
So many people seem to think banning guns would stop crazy people from killing. There are PLENTY of ways to kill large groups of people without using a gun. I could probably name three or four ways just using standard household chemicals and materials available from a grocery store, and I know next to nothing about that sort of thing (it's not exactly something I do research on). Or you could use a car, for that matter; there's a video out there of a guy from I think Brazil where he runs over a bunch of bikers on parade in the street. It's not like a gun is the only way to cause large amounts of suffering; I guarantee someone who wants to kill a large group of people can find a way to do so without a gun. You know what can't be done effectively without a gun? Defending yourself from a crazy person with a lethal weapon.
That guy in China who attacked a bunch of children on the same day of the Newtown shooting didn't have access to guns and no one died. All things that are potentially lethal are not equally lethal. Some things are more dangerous than others.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Gun control laws are strict enough in the US. People abroad seem to think any idiot can buy a gun and carry in public; that's not true at all except in maybe some of the worse parts of the major cities. Background checks are required, licenses are required, and as far as I know, every single state requires some sort of training in the safe operation of the firearm.
You don't have to have a background check at a gun show. That's quite a big loophole.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
If you want to really prevent crazy people from killing lots of people, make it easier and cheaper for them to receive mental assistance from trained professionals. And try to get rid of some of the stigma associated with getting that assistance.
This I agree with. I think everyone thinks this is a good idea. I just wish more people would also support ways of paying for this.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #137    
Old December 21st, 2012 (09:21 AM).
shenanigans's Avatar
shenanigans
i am so proud of you
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester
Gender: Male
Quote originally posted by twocows:
Stricter gun laws would do absolutely nothing except render law-abiding citizens defenseless. You know what would have really helped prevent this? Training every single member of the faculty in the safe operation of a handgun and requiring them to carry at all times while on school property.
So instead of taking away the cause of the violence here, you'd rather surround kids by it? We're looking to stop mass shootings here, not give every educational employee the ability to terrify their own students without even meaning to. Further to that, being trained to use a weapon doesn't make you automatically mentally stable. In countries which have gun control, it's not all that unusual to hear of a teacher attacking a student. So when you give them a gun that they've been trained to use, they're on top of the world! Already in a classroom full of defenceless children with a weapon able to kill them all! All you've got to do is lock the door and get to work! All you're doing here is surrounding schoolchildren by terrifying weapons and giving their teachers the means to repeat incidents like this. I can't see any way in which this is a good idea.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
So many people seem to think banning guns would stop crazy people from killing. There are PLENTY of ways to kill large groups of people without using a gun. I could probably name three or four ways just using standard household chemicals and materials available from a grocery store, and I know next to nothing about that sort of thing (it's not exactly something I do research on). Or you could use a car, for that matter; there's a video out there of a guy from I think Brazil where he runs over a bunch of bikers on parade in the street. It's not like a gun is the only way to cause large amounts of suffering; I guarantee someone who wants to kill a large group of people can find a way to do so without a gun. You know what can't be done effectively without a gun? Defending yourself from a crazy person with a lethal weapon.
Looks like this dude wasn't trying to kill anyone, in that case! Because if he was then, according to you, he'd have successfully killed all of these people! This argument just won't fly. There is simply no way of killing people as effective as using a weapon designed to kill people. There's just no two ways about it; sell someone a weapon which was made to kill people and, unsurprisingly, they're going to be pretty capable of killing people. Yes it is possible to kill people other ways but much more difficult and much less effective.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Gun control laws are strict enough in the US. People abroad seem to think any idiot can buy a gun and carry in public; that's not true at all except in maybe some of the worse parts of the major cities. Background checks are required, licenses are required, and as far as I know, every single state requires some sort of training in the safe operation of the firearm.
The fact that you're able to, if you've got a clear background, purchase and (honestly, even worse) be trained to use a killing weapon means that your gun controls are not strict enough. It doesn't matter how tight you are on who is allowed to own one. Anyone at all can take a turn for the worse and decide to use it against innocent people. Don't trust anyone with the ability to kill at will. And honestly, the fact that this incident even happened at all is proof enough that gun laws need to be tighter.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
If you want to really prevent crazy people from killing lots of people, make it easier and cheaper for them to receive mental assistance from trained professionals. And try to get rid of some of the stigma associated with getting that assistance.
When you give a 'crazy person' a gun in one hand and the means to get mental help in the other hand, they'll probably shoot you. Prevent further incidents like this by tightening gun laws before looking at the mental illness side of the story. However, I agree that it'd help people not yet at a stage like this if assistance was made more easily available.
__________________
WHY DONT U EVEN CHAT ME
Reply With Quote
  #138    
Old December 21st, 2012 (03:00 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89
Guide of Darkness
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Quote originally posted by Scarf:
This I agree with. I think everyone thinks this is a good idea. I just wish more people would also support ways of paying for this.
Yes. Very much agreed.

This is as much a mental health issue as it is a gun access issue. Should the politicians focus strictly on over the other, I don't think any progress will be made
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139    
Old December 21st, 2012 (03:02 PM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote originally posted by Cosmotone8:
Who says that the faculty wouldn't have turned around and done the same thing if they all held guns?
I've never heard of a teacher going off the hook and trying to kill their students. Perhaps have several armed security guards then if you really don't trust the teachers with it. That's probably a better idea, now that I think about it.
Quote:
Also its not like Sandy Hook is a major elementary school either. If this had happened in some major city it might be different. But some rural town? Nobody would have thought that it would be necessary.
That's an oversight on their part, then. Crazy people are everywhere.
Quote:
While guns may not be the "only way to cause large amounts of suffering" they are the most likely means of doing so. When people want to commit murder,I assume most think, "Oh, I'm going to go shoot or stab a bunch of people." I doubt that most would think to plow people down in a parade.
I think that's a very dangerous assumption to make and one that has no evidence to support it.

Quote originally posted by Scarf:
Are you Wayne LaPierre?
I don't know who that is.

Quote:
That guy in China who attacked a bunch of children on the same day of the Newtown shooting didn't have access to guns and no one died. All things that are potentially lethal are not equally lethal. Some things are more dangerous than others.
I didn't bring up the China incident. I did bring up a different example which you failed to even acknowledge. But the point is that plenty of ordinary things can be lethal, and on a large scale, too. Banning guns just takes protection away from innocent citizens and does little to stop the flow of illegal weaponry (banning things rarely seems to stop the trade of them; just look at prohibition and marijuana as two examples). You're just castrating people who go through the proper channels, nothing more.

Quote:
You don't have to have a background check at a gun show. That's quite a big loophole.
Then require them. That's perfectly reasonable; I have no problems with such a law. If you think there's a loophole, bring it up, talk about it. I'm opposed to making it harder to get guns through the proper channels or especially banning them outright. If you think there's some oversight, have a dialogue about that before anything else.

Quote originally posted by Razor Leaf:
So instead of taking away the cause of the violence here, you'd rather surround kids by it?
I suggested that we populate schools with psychopaths? Oh my, that does seem like a pretty bad suggestion.
Quote:
We're looking to stop mass shootings here, not give every educational employee the ability to terrify their own students without even meaning to.
Yeah, now that I think about it, the security guard idea I mentioned above seems a lot more reasonable. Might be a bit more expensive, but security guards generally aren't paid much, and the safety tradeoff is worth it.
Quote:
Further to that, being trained to use a weapon doesn't make you automatically mentally stable. In countries which have gun control, it's not all that unusual to hear of a teacher attacking a student. So when you give them a gun that they've been trained to use, they're on top of the world! Already in a classroom full of defenseless children with a weapon able to kill them all! All you've got to do is lock the door and get to work! All you're doing here is surrounding schoolchildren by terrifying weapons and giving their teachers the means to repeat incidents like this. I can't see any way in which this is a good idea.
Sorry, I've never heard of these teachers who go off trying to their students. I've heard of teachers who go off the hook on one student, but never an entire class full of students. That said, I've suggested another idea above.


Quote:
Looks like this dude wasn't trying to kill anyone, in that case! Because if he was then, according to you, he'd have successfully killed all of these people! This argument just won't fly. There is simply no way of killing people as effective as using a weapon designed to kill people.
I didn't mention knife because I didn't think it was lethal on a large scale. I did mention several other ways which I do believe are lethal on a large scale that you, like the other poster, simply ignored.
Quote:
There's just no two ways about it; sell someone a weapon which was made to kill people and, unsurprisingly, they're going to be pretty capable of killing people.
Goodbye, automobile industry; I knew thee well.
Quote:
Yes it is possible to kill people other ways but much more difficult and much less effective.
Not really. For either of the methods I mentioned. Making a chemical weapon out of household chemicals takes maybe one or two searches on Google, the data's all readily there. And killing children with a car would be even easier; all they have to do is wait until children are outside of the school and run them down en masse. It's not a pleasant thought, but it's something that's not hard to do at all for one so inclined.


Quote:
The fact that you're able to, if you've got a clear background, purchase and (honestly, even worse) be trained to use a killing weapon means that your gun controls are not strict enough. It doesn't matter how tight you are on who is allowed to own one. Anyone at all can take a turn for the worse and decide to use it against innocent people. Don't trust anyone with the ability to kill at will. And honestly, the fact that this incident even happened at all is proof enough that gun laws need to be tighter.
Like I said above, banning guns would have the same effect as banning alcohol or banning marijuana. It would simply create an illegal industry based around distributing them. Then you'd have gangs and organized criminals with guns and people who buy through them with guns while Joe Average with the clean background who simply wants to protect himself is completely unable to do so.

I'm sorry, but treating everyone like criminals by default is awfully totalitarian. By and large, most gun owners are completely reasonable people who just want to be able to protect themselves should the need ever arise. I should know, I know several, including myself. And you know what? Guns work for protection. Sometimes they work without the need to even fire a shot; nothing deters a would-be criminal more than a loaded gun to their face. You can't ban something because a minority of people happen to misuse it; you'd be banning everything from cars to household aerosol sprays.


Quote:
When you give a 'crazy person' a gun in one hand and the means to get mental help in the other hand, they'll probably shoot you.
Then don't give them both? I have no problems with preventing people receiving mental help from being able to own weapons. Or possibly even require a minimal psychiatric exam for anything semi-automatic.
Quote:
Prevent further incidents like this by tightening gun laws
A flawed solution that accomplishes nothing productive
Quote:
before looking at the mental illness side of the story.
A solution that strikes at the root of the problem and does not diminish personal freedom of innocents
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]
Reply With Quote
  #140    
Old December 21st, 2012 (03:30 PM).
shenanigans's Avatar
shenanigans
everything will be okay
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Manchester
Gender: Male
Quote originally posted by twocows:
I didn't mention knife because I didn't think it was lethal on a large scale. I did mention several other ways which I do believe are lethal on a large scale that you, like the other poster, simply ignored.
Because the other ways are 1: irrelevant here and 2: aren't done using weapons made to kill people. This is what I keep coming back to - I acknowledge that you could, if you wanted to, kill several people with a car for example. But that doesn't mean that guns shouldn't be banned. Just because something with a perfectly legitimate use can be used to kill someone doesn't make it a murder weapon. I can think of literally nothing else other than guns which is legal and has no purpose other than to kill with.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Goodbye, automobile industry; I knew thee well.
Sorry? Cars are now a 'weapon made to kill people'?

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Not really. For either of the methods I mentioned. Making a chemical weapon out of household chemicals takes maybe one or two searches on Google, the data's all readily there. And killing children with a car would be even easier; all they have to do is wait until children are outside of the school and run them down en masse. It's not a pleasant thought, but it's something that's not hard to do at all for one so inclined.
Again, though, these things aren't murder weapons. We're talking about the banning of guns here, not how to kill people with things other than guns.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Like I said above, banning guns would have the same effect as banning alcohol or banning marijuana. It would simply create an illegal industry based around distributing them. Then you'd have gangs and organized criminals with guns and people who buy through them with guns while Joe Average with the clean background who simply wants to protect himself is completely unable to do so.
Oh, I acknowledge that an illegal industry selling guns would develop. But I doubt people would be anywhere near as inclined to use it as they would be if guns are legal as they are right now - if people even knew how to access such an industry. It wouldn't remove the problem totally. I don't think guns are a problem that can ever be removed totally because of industries like this. But the issue can definitely be alleviated to an extent.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
I'm sorry, but treating everyone like criminals by default is awfully totalitarian. By and large, most gun owners are completely reasonable people who just want to be able to protect themselves should the need ever arise. I should know, I know several, including myself. And you know what? Guns work for protection. Sometimes they work without the need to even fire a shot; nothing deters a would-be criminal more than a loaded gun to their face. You can't ban something because a minority of people happen to misuse it; you'd be banning everything from cars to household aerosol sprays.
Not trusting someone with the ability to kill another person is the same as assuming that they're criminals? It doesn't matter how responsible the majority of gun owners are or what their intentions are; the point is that these are weapons designed to kill which, on occasion, are used to kill. I think erring on the side of caution with such a weapon is worth the number of lives which could be potentially saved. With other things such as cars and aerosol sprays, that's fine since they have very practical and non-violent uses. It's true that guns can deter crime, but once again, is it really worth the number of lives they cost given that they can cause crime (and not just any crime, but outright murder) just as easily as they can deter it? I don't think so. And maybe you do think so - in which case, it's just down to difference of opinion here.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Then don't give them both? I have no problems with preventing people receiving mental help from being able to own weapons. Or possibly even require a minimal psychiatric exam for anything semi-automatic.
So you'd assume someone receiving mental help to be someone who can't be trusted with a weapon? You'd have to draw the line somewhere; just because someone's depressed, for example, doesn't make them dangerous and by removing their firearms you're rendering them, as you'd put it, defenceless. You can't just take people who might have something wrong with them, short-term or permanent, and deny them access to firearms when everyone else has it. It's all or nothing - if someone is able to cope in society normally then they should have the same access to firearms as anyone else should. And the only surely safe way to go about this is to remove the firearms in the first place.

As far as psychiatric assessment goes, that's a good idea at the time of the purchase of the weapon, but people and their circumstances can change. Psychiatric assessment would only be fully effective if gun owners were regularly re-assessed, a very expensive and time-consuming endeavour.
__________________
if i'd never let go
then only god knows where i would be now.
Reply With Quote
  #141    
Old December 21st, 2012 (03:48 PM).
Riku's Avatar
Riku
Who cares to know, eh Bubbles?
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2010
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I'm on the fence about gun legislation. I generally oppose banning weapons, but I still think it shouldn't be so easy to acquire something whose primary purpose is to be fired and to kill people. I'd rather actually go about the route that Australia took back in the 90s and ban more dangerous weaponry (do you really need automatic weapons or shotguns?) while offering incentives for people to move the weapons off the streets through something like a buyback program. Also would immediately close the Gun Show Loophole by requiring identification and background checks. However, only that last one I think should be genuinely pressing here.

Sugarcoat it all you like, the issue here isn't the weapons. It's people. I'm not about to defend a gun, as it is a tool of death and destruction, but banning them is, as I've said countless times elsewhere, merely a bandaid on a much larger wound. It's costly, and will be met with a large amount of opposition, be it from the people or corporations, and will probably be about as effective at keeping the trade at bay as any other prohibition we've ever had. I'd rather focus the funds and time on proper funding for treatment for mental disorders, gun education and training like what the NRA was about prior to the 70s I believe it was when manufacturers of these guns starting paying their bills, and better funding for combating inequality and poverty and the like, things that are major contributors to this sort of thing.
__________________
pairfamilycredittheme

Reply With Quote
  #142    
Old December 21st, 2012 (06:23 PM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote originally posted by Razor Leaf:
Because the other ways are 1: irrelevant here
No they're not, they're perfectly relevant. You're implying that banning guns would cut violent crime. I'm saying that's rubbish, and provided two other examples of how would-be criminals could commit pretty much the exact same crime with other readily available materials.
Quote:
and 2: aren't done using weapons made to kill people. This is what I keep coming back to - I acknowledge that you could, if you wanted to, kill several people with a car for example. But that doesn't mean that guns shouldn't be banned. Just because something with a perfectly legitimate use can be used to kill someone doesn't make it a murder weapon. I can think of literally nothing else other than guns which is legal and has no purpose other than to kill with.
You seem to be implying that a shot with a gun is always lethal and that guns are only used for ill means. That's absurd. The primary purpose of a gun in the consumer market is for protection, and anyone trained in the use of a gun knows (or ought to know) the difference between a lethal shot and a shot to incapacitate. It's a legal concept called "necessary force;" if someone is attempting to harm you, you're generally allowed to shoot to kill, otherwise you're generally supposed to shoot to incapacitate.

I'll quote your exact words: "just because something with a perfectly legitimate use can be used to kill someone doesn't make it a murder weapon." The "legitimate use" is to incapacitate someone who is attempting to commit a crime against you.


Quote:
Sorry? Cars are now a 'weapon made to kill people'?
What matters is whether the device has legitimate uses or not. Guns can be legitimately used for protection, cars can be legitimately used for driving. Both can be abused to harm innocents. Neither should be banned because a small minority of gun- or car-owners misuse them.

Quote:
Again, though, these things aren't murder weapons. We're talking about the banning of guns here, not how to kill people with things other than guns.
They're murder weapons if people use them to murder others. And I'm bringing up examples of why, even if you got rid of every gun on the planet, it wouldn't make a dent in violent crime. And that's not even touching the "illegal trade" issue.


Quote:
Oh, I acknowledge that an illegal industry selling guns would develop. But I doubt people would be anywhere near as inclined to use it as they would be if guns are legal as they are right now - if people even knew how to access such an industry. It wouldn't remove the problem totally. I don't think guns are a problem that can ever be removed totally because of industries like this. But the issue can definitely be alleviated to an extent.
Your "doubt" is not a legitimate argument. I can just as easily say "I'm pretty sure criminals would be just as inclined to purchase weapons from illegal sources, if not more so since there would be no associated background checks."

That said, the point is that by banning guns, you're definitely taking them away from the legitimate group of users and maybe affecting the illegitimate use group (I would argue not).


Quote:
Not trusting someone with the ability to kill another person is the same as assuming that they're criminals?
Not trusting someone with a device that has a legitimate use because a small group of people misuse said device is the same as treating those people as criminals. You're saying "you can't have this because you might be a criminal and misuse it." And that violates one of the very principles upon which our society is predicated: the principle of presumed innocence.
Quote:
It doesn't matter how responsible the majority of gun owners are or what their intentions are; the point is that these are weapons designed to kill which, on occasion, are used to kill.
What they're designed to do is irrelevant. What purpose they serve is what is relevant. They serve to protect the vast majority of gun owners and their friends and family.
Quote:
I think erring on the side of caution with such a weapon is worth the number of lives which could be potentially saved. With other things such as cars and aerosol sprays, that's fine since they have very practical and non-violent uses. It's true that guns can deter crime, but once again, is it really worth the number of lives they cost given that they can cause crime (and not just any crime, but outright murder) just as easily as they can deter it? I don't think so. And maybe you do think so - in which case, it's just down to difference of opinion here.
You're very much trying to turn this into a "if you don't support stricter gun control, you're being cavalier with human life" argument. But it's not. Whether those other things have "non-violent uses" is irrelevant; they can be used just as readily for ill means as a gun can. The point is that banning guns would accomplish nothing except depriving people of a means for personal protection. It would not have an impact on violent crime for the reasons I've stated above.

And even if it did, I still believe banning the sale of guns would be unfair, as it presumes guilt when we are supposed to presume innocence.



Quote:
So you'd assume someone receiving mental help to be someone who can't be trusted with a weapon? You'd have to draw the line somewhere; just because someone's depressed, for example, doesn't make them dangerous
I disagree (I think severe depression can absolutely be dangerous), but now that I think about it, what I said earlier comes into play: there are plenty of ways to cause harm without a gun. I admit, I'm not sure how to handle that situation. Conventional thinking goes out the window when it comes to unstable individuals. We can't take any sort of extreme measures that might be construed as punishment, as that would discourage those people from getting help. On the other hand, if they're unstable to the point of being dangerous, they could cause a lot of harm, gun or no. I think I'll stick to my principles and say that we need to err on the side of being more free, not less. But if they, for instance, fail to show up to an appointment or something, that should be a major thing.

I don't know, it's a tough issue, and it's something people need to talk about. At the very least, more research needs to be done, and we need to figure out a fair way to prevent such people from doing harm without restricting their personal liberty.
Quote:
and by removing their firearms you're rendering them, as you'd put it, defenseless.
That, too.

Quote:
You can't just take people who might have something wrong with them, short-term or permanent, and deny them access to firearms when everyone else has it. It's all or nothing - if someone is able to cope in society normally then they should have the same access to firearms as anyone else should. And the only surely safe way to go about this is to remove the firearms in the first place.
I don't think that follows. Yes, it doesn't make sense to restrict their freedoms when that will deter them from receiving help. And on the other hand, yes, it's not exactly a bright idea to hand someone with mental issues a firearm. That part makes sense, and I don't think there's an easy solution. Maybe some sort of conditional sale, a give-and-take sort of thing. Allow the sale of non-semiautomatics to the mentally ill as long as they agree (on penalty of jail time) to check in and get help on a regular basis. Maybe watch them for the first day or two to make sure they actually do it.

What I don't agree with is that removing firearms entirely would solve anything. One of the reasons that, now that I think about it, banning the sale of firearms to the mentally ill wouldn't be very effective is something I've already stated: firearms aren't the only way to cause large-scale death. It doesn't take a genius to figure out alternatives.

Like I said though, we have to err on the side of personal freedom. "Punishing" the mentally ill will just push them away from receiving aid, and banning the sale altogether is flat-out unfair to the vast majority of people.

Quote:
As far as psychiatric assessment goes, that's a good idea at the time of the purchase of the weapon, but people and their circumstances can change. Psychiatric assessment would only be fully effective if gun owners were regularly re-assessed, a very expensive and time-consuming endeavor.
Once a decade might be a decent balance. Or maybe sooner if their reported earnings are significantly down, or if a concerned person believes there's been a major shift.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]
Reply With Quote
  #143    
Old December 21st, 2012 (07:22 PM).
Bluerang1's Avatar
Bluerang1
pin pin
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Hiougi City
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
No one civilian needs an automatic weapon.

I hope that's one of the reforms.
__________________
3DS Friend Code: 1204-0601-9485
Pokémon X
Post on my wall if you add me so I can add you!
Reply With Quote
  #144    
Old December 21st, 2012 (07:54 PM).
Twilight Sky's Avatar
Twilight Sky
» s t r a w b e r r y fields ♪
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Send a message via AIM to Twilight Sky Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Twilight Sky Send a message via Skype™ to Twilight Sky
Though I'd put my two cents here.

Arming teachers and putting security guards in the classroom does absolutely nothing. Let's put it this way: There's absolutely no positive way to be 100% safe, plain and simple, since anything can happen on just about any time whatsoever. I'm on the side that it could potentially be psychologically scarring to kids to see a big, scary, military man standing in the classroom all day, preparing to shoot my own teacher, should she get out of hand with her own weapon which she shouldn't be having in the first place.

You want to make school, in the end, a positive and yet safe environment for kids to learn. You can't have one thing without taking out the other. Strengthening security albeit being "safer", would make schools feel more like a prison than a place for actual academic and social growth, like it's supposed to be.

I cannot say anything as far as gun laws are concerned, I'm just expressing my views psychologically. Personally, I'd feel uncomfortable if I was in a classroom knowing that there was a gun in the vicinity. All it takes is one bad day(everyone has them), and all that training goes out the window.
Reply With Quote
  #145    
Old December 21st, 2012 (08:19 PM).
Khawill's Avatar
Khawill
Swaggins
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Cave of Hymns
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Brave
No offense but I'd rather be shot by a gun then burned by a homemade moltave or stabbed by a knife, or hit by a car. At least guns are lethal and the death is quicker. I can't justify murder, but we have the choice between making it less lethal, but more painful, or more lethal and more deaths. It is an easy choice for you to make, but there is a reason weapons are made more and more lethal, favoring instant kills over maiming.
__________________
College Bound, Mentally Sound.

Frio & Elise || Jayce & Jayce 2
Reply With Quote
  #146    
Old December 21st, 2012 (08:45 PM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote originally posted by Winter's Dew:
Though I'd put my two cents here.

Arming teachers and putting security guards in the classroom does absolutely nothing.
Except protect everyone, but that doesn't really matter, you're right.
Quote:
Let's put it this way: There's absolutely no positive way to be 100% safe, plain and simple, since anything can happen on just about any time whatsoever.
The point is to minimize incidents like that, not prevent them altogether, which is obviously impossible.
Quote:
I'm on the side that it could potentially be psychologically scarring to kids to see a big, scary, military man standing in the classroom all day,
Have you ever been to a mall? Security guards aren't usually "big, scary military men." They're fat old guys with a baton. I'm saying, give them a low-impact gun or a tazer or something. And you don't have them stand in the classroom all day, you have one watching a set of cameras and one patrolling the hallways.
Quote:
preparing to shoot my own teacher, should she get out of hand with her own weapon which she shouldn't be having in the first place.
What? Obviously you'd have one or the other, and I already conceded that security guards would be a better system.

Quote:
You want to make school, in the end, a positive and yet safe environment for kids to learn. You can't have one thing without taking out the other. Strengthening security albeit being "safer", would make schools feel more like a prison than a place for actual academic and social growth, like it's supposed to be.
We had a cop who would patrol our school when I was in high school and it didn't make it feel like a prison. He wasn't there all the time, but he was there often, and it didn't make it "feel like a prison" at all.

Quote:
I cannot say anything as far as gun laws are concerned, I'm just expressing my views psychologically. Personally, I'd feel uncomfortable if I was in a classroom knowing that there was a gun in the vicinity. All it takes is one bad day(everyone has them), and all that training goes out the window.
Yeah, all those cops that go on killing sprees. Clearly, proper training is useless in the face of a bad day.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]
Reply With Quote
  #147    
Old December 22nd, 2012 (08:02 AM).
Twilight Sky's Avatar
Twilight Sky
» s t r a w b e r r y fields ♪
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Gender: Female
Send a message via AIM to Twilight Sky Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Twilight Sky Send a message via Skype™ to Twilight Sky
[QUOTE=twocows;7450820]
Quote:
Except protect everyone, but that doesn't really matter, you're right.
So they're supposed to take on superhero-like duties, now?

Quote:
Have you ever been to a mall? Security guards aren't usually "big, scary military men." They're fat old guys with a baton. I'm saying, give them a low-impact gun or a tazer or something. And you don't have them stand in the classroom all day, you have one watching a set of cameras and one patrolling the hallways.
You aren't a child, so you don't know if they think that heavily armed guy isn't a "big, scary, military man". Other than that, you raise valid points as far as tazers and whatnot are concerned, just keep the guards away from the classrooms to minimize psychological scarring.

Quote:
What? Obviously you'd have one or the other, and I already conceded that security guards would be a better system.
Ah, I see. Forgive me for that, then.

Quote:
We had a cop who would patrol our school when I was in high school and it didn't make it feel like a prison. He wasn't there all the time, but he was there often, and it didn't make it "feel like a prison" at all.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is it depends on what direction you really take as far as strengthening security. And remember that you're talking about a cop here. I don't know whether you were talking about actual school security guards, or SROs(School Resource Officers). You want to have more SROs? Fine, so be it, have them patrol around school grounds. No one really notices them much anyway.

Arming school security guards? That's an issue that I'm iffy about. You're trading safety with exposing children to lethal weapons 24/7. Which leads me to my next point:


Quote:
Yeah, all those cops that go on killing sprees. Clearly, proper training is useless in the face of a bad day.
And you know this, how? The pure definition of "training someone"(to me, at least, correct me if I'm wrong here) is to prepare them for the everyday demands and tasks and responsibilities that they're going to be faced with day-to-day. You can include "this is what you should do in an event that you have a bad day", but does that mean that they're actually going to follow that procedure, if, say, they actually do?

For example, at my old high school, you have your standard SRO in the front office. They weren't the first thing you saw when you walked in the school, but they were present nonetheless. And sometimes there were several on at the same time, depending on the day. Their duty consisted of dealing with things such as fighting between students, disturbances, and the like. That, I have no issues with, and such lies within the duties of an SRO.

School security guards, though? They aren't cops by any means, they're just security. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe I'm just speaking too much out of personal experience, when SROs can do their jobs just fine, why fix something that technically isn't broken(in this case, anyway)? The school security guards do nothing more than apprehend students that cause trouble and take them to the SRO to deal with, and make sure that students have gone to class, nobody is roaming the hallways too much, etc etc. Why do they need a lethal weapon here? And as much as police "brutality" occurs(which is a separate topic in itself), how would you know that the school security guards won't misuse their given weapons in any way, shape or form? I'm sorry, but I'd personally be uncomfortable with that.

Leave the weapons to the people who are supposed to have them, and know how to use them best. You really don't know what goes on through a person's mind when they're having a really particularly stressful day. Security guards are human just like anyone else, and they are just about prone to everyday stresses like anyone else. Having a gun in their vicinity doesn't make things any easier, better, or safer for that matter. Especially when these people are around students every single second, minute, and hour of the day. SROs aren't around students, and really don't interact with students often, which is the difference here.


I apologize if some of what I said doesn't make sense, I'll be happy to clarify more if you'd like.
Reply With Quote
  #148    
Old December 22nd, 2012 (09:02 AM). Edited December 22nd, 2012 by Mr. X.
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X
For Money
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Lets point out some irony.

Republicans say more police and easier access to mental health care will help to prevent this from ever happening, again. I guess that explains why this massacre happened, as Republicans have been cutting and trying to cut funding that funds or would have funded more police and mental health care.

Arming teachers is, in theory, a good idea. However, all it will do is change some headlines to "Teacher beats student, caught on tape!" to "Teacher shoots student, caught on tape!" Sure, arm teachers. But lets get rid of the overly agressive teachers, the ones who like to beat on their students, first otherwise this will backfire badly.
__________________
Follower of Carlinism since 2008.

Come play Runescape
Reply With Quote
  #149    
Old December 22nd, 2012 (09:24 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote originally posted by twocows:
I didn't bring up the China incident. I did bring up a different example which you failed to even acknowledge. But the point is that plenty of ordinary things can be lethal, and on a large scale, too. Banning guns just takes protection away from innocent citizens and does little to stop the flow of illegal weaponry (banning things rarely seems to stop the trade of them; just look at prohibition and marijuana as two examples). You're just castrating people who go through the proper channels, nothing more.
As much as I'd like to see a ban on guns, I didn't suggest that. I just said different things are lethal to different degrees.

You didn't bring up the China issue, but I did because you were talking about how someone could kill without a gun and I was offering a counterexample of someone who failed to kill anyone because he had no gun. But okay, you mentioned chemicals as one thing that can kill. Yes, okay, do you mean by poisoning someone? That would require someone to have access to food or drinks or something like that. Couldn't just barge into a school like someone with a gun could. And if you mean some kind of chemical bomb then you'd have to know how to make that. Even terrorist suicide bombers screw up making explosives so I'd expect a crazy person would have mixed results. As for cars, potentially lethal, but you have to first have a license to own one, money to buy one, and even if you could steal one it's not exactly a concealable weapon. You can't bring one into a movie theatre, and people can at least try to run away from one if they see someone driving crazy.

Quote originally posted by twocows:
Then require them. That's perfectly reasonable; I have no problems with such a law. If you think there's a loophole, bring it up, talk about it. I'm opposed to making it harder to get guns through the proper channels or especially banning them outright. If you think there's some oversight, have a dialogue about that before anything else.
Pro-gun-control people have been suggesting this be fixed. It's been on the lips of everyone asking for more gun control, but not so much on anti-gun-control folks, such as one of the NRA leaders who spoke yesterday (even if, as I think I've read, most NRA members are okay with closing loopholes).
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #150    
Old December 22nd, 2012 (03:18 PM).
twocows's Avatar
twocows
Pretentious Intellectual Jerk
Community Supporter
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Michigan
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
Quote originally posted by Scarf:
As much as I'd like to see a ban on guns, I didn't suggest that. I just said different things are lethal to different degrees.

You didn't bring up the China issue, but I did because you were talking about how someone could kill without a gun and I was offering a counterexample of someone who failed to kill anyone because he had no gun. But okay, you mentioned chemicals as one thing that can kill. Yes, okay, do you mean by poisoning someone? That would require someone to have access to food or drinks or something like that. Couldn't just barge into a school like someone with a gun could. And if you mean some kind of chemical bomb then you'd have to know how to make that. Even terrorist suicide bombers screw up making explosives so I'd expect a crazy person would have mixed results. As for cars, potentially lethal, but you have to first have a license to own one, money to buy one, and even if you could steal one it's not exactly a concealable weapon. You can't bring one into a movie theatre, and people can at least try to run away from one if they see someone driving crazy.
Terrorist suicide bombers screw up making a very specific explosive designed to be undetectable. It's a lot easier to make household chemical weapons without that requirement, I'd imagine, and crazy people aren't always stupid, just crazy. That said, I don't know exactly how hard it would be, I'm not versed enough on the subject. As for a car, the easiest way would be to steal one or "borrow" one if they didn't have one.

If you're not suggesting a ban or making it unreasonably hard for someone like me to get a gun for personal protection, then I don't really have a problem. I just don't want to be denied access to something that could potentially save not only my life, but possibly others', as well.

Quote:
Pro-gun-control people have been suggesting this be fixed. It's been on the lips of everyone asking for more gun control, but not so much on anti-gun-control folks, such as one of the NRA leaders who spoke yesterday (even if, as I think I've read, most NRA members are okay with closing loopholes).
I wouldn't know much about that, but like I said, I'm all for closing loopholes.
__________________
Doctors Without Borders: one of the few charity groups you can rely on to actually do real good in the world.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken, unsourced

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"- Isaac Asimov, Column in Newsweek (21 January 1980) [source]
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 09:39 PM.