THORNHEART wrote:Once again the right to bear arms has proved it self valid.
a maniac gunman was taken down by a plainclothes secrurity woman in new life church the other day.
this man could have gotten his gun in several ways wile the woman was totaly legal in her possession of the gun this proves that criminals will always get guns somehow law or no law...so i say facilitate the process of citizens getting guns so we can deffend our selfs better
surveys (acording to the nra) say that 2 millions robberies a year are prevent by homeowners/business owners exercising their right to carry!
u guys got guns ...check in and be proud about it...WERE THE GOOD GUYS
you come to my door wanting trouble youll get a 160 gram 30 06 springfield rifle poking out the door
tell us all your make and models!!
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWW
So the good guys are the ones with guns now? That's a new one
EDIT: And yes, already a goddamn hick pro gun thread here at the moment - lock it!
THORNHEART wrote:Once again the right to bear arms has proved it self valid.
a maniac gunman was taken down by a plainclothes secrurity woman in new life church the other day.
this man could have gotten his gun in several ways wile the woman was totaly legal in her possession of the gun this proves that criminals will always get guns somehow law or no law...so i say facilitate the process of citizens getting guns so we can deffend our selfs better
surveys (acording to the nra) say that 2 millions robberies a year are prevent by homeowners/business owners exercising their right to carry!
u guys got guns ...check in and be proud about it...WERE THE GOOD GUYS
you come to my door wanting trouble youll get a 160 gram 30 06 springfield rifle poking out the door
tell us all your make and models!!
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWW
So the good guys are the ones with guns now? That's a new one
EDIT: And yes, already a goddamn hick pro gun thread here at the moment - lock it!
again i dont think it necessarily will make things that more effective. I think the new life situation highlights part of the problem, unless you have the weapon in close proximity to you, it doesnt do you much good. Yes if we give trained security even on a volunteer level guns, it may curb violence, but again this isnt the type of thing you can prove.
But even if guns are in a parking lot, what good would that do most once classes begin, especially if you consider many of the offenders in these situations are willing to die for whatever their cause is anyway. Seemingly if your going to have guns as a defence they need to be near you much of the time. Frankly i dont see the benefit to a group of people of having guns for a lot of people. There are a lot of contingencies for them to be useful.
For an individual i can see the argument, for groups it is much less clear imo.
got tonkaed wrote:mtg sorry i missed your post for a bit....anyway
again i dont think it necessarily will make things that more effective. I think the new life situation highlights part of the problem, unless you have the weapon in close proximity to you, it doesnt do you much good. Yes if we give trained security even on a volunteer level guns, it may curb violence, but again this isnt the type of thing you can prove.
But even if guns are in a parking lot, what good would that do most once classes begin, especially if you consider many of the offenders in these situations are willing to die for whatever their cause is anyway. Seemingly if your going to have guns as a defence they need to be near you much of the time. Frankly i dont see the benefit to a group of people of having guns for a lot of people. There are a lot of contingencies for them to be useful.
For an individual i can see the argument, for groups it is much less clear imo.
Think about it. Many schools have different halls, corridors, and floors. Some students will be able to make it out and to their vehicles to get their guns. And if they're smart about it, they'll come in from different directions to surround the shooter.
Also, I was implying individual gun ownership. If people chose to get together for those kinds of things, well, all the more effective for reducing crime in those areas.
i am arguing against one of the arguments that is commonly made and has been in this thread about individual gun ownership, specifically this idea that arming more people means these incidents will be less violent or wont occur. Frankly even if you have everyone have a gun in a school, if the guns arent with the people (and they probably wouldnt be during a normal school day) it doesnt serve anyone any more good to have them if a shooter shows up. We can argue about hypotheticals saying that someone would all of the sudden get a rush of bravado and save everyone from the attacker, but again we cant prove this to be true anymore than the first statement.
Much of this argument is neat because it lies on things that are very difficult to falsify by their nature and appeals to many peoples common sense. It does not however, give any truth value to the argument on its own.
Like ive said, im willing to believe giving people guns creates an illusion of safety and probably does make them safer in their own home. It still probably doesnt do a whole lot of good in a crowd type of situation, because there are plenty of mitigating factors that a pro gun argument is going to overlook.
Phagjoey, i also am not implying. You are a sniveling, bedwetting little turd who will jump on any bandwagon as long as it is gay. Go figure. I would rather die by gunshot than have my balls cut off at an early age as your parents evidently opted for in your case.
Phagjoey, i also am not implying. You are a sniveling, bedwetting little turd who will jump on any bandwagon as long as it is gay. Go figure. I would rather die by gunshot than have my balls cut off at an early age as your parents evidently opted for in your case.
Honibaz
You obviously have not read the thread completely or you would know I am pro-gun. As far as your opinion is concerned . . . whooooopeeeeeee! No one cares.
THORNHEART wrote:this man could have gotten his gun in several ways wile the woman was totaly legal in her possession of the gun this proves that criminals will always get guns somehow law or no law
Wrong.
And the rest of the world's experiences proves that.
got tonkaed wrote:mtg sorry i missed your post for a bit....anyway
again i dont think it necessarily will make things that more effective. I think the new life situation highlights part of the problem, unless you have the weapon in close proximity to you, it doesnt do you much good. Yes if we give trained security even on a volunteer level guns, it may curb violence, but again this isnt the type of thing you can prove.
But even if guns are in a parking lot, what good would that do most once classes begin, especially if you consider many of the offenders in these situations are willing to die for whatever their cause is anyway. Seemingly if your going to have guns as a defence they need to be near you much of the time. Frankly i dont see the benefit to a group of people of having guns for a lot of people. There are a lot of contingencies for them to be useful.
For an individual i can see the argument, for groups it is much less clear imo.
Think about it. Many schools have different halls, corridors, and floors. Some students will be able to make it out and to their vehicles to get their guns. And if they're smart about it, they'll come in from different directions to surround the shooter.
Also, I was implying individual gun ownership. If people chose to get together for those kinds of things, well, all the more effective for reducing crime in those areas.
great idea, some students will get out to their cars, grab their guns and head into the school looking for the gunman.
unfortunately most of them don't know who the gunman is as they bolted from different parts of the school at the sound of gunfire.
so now you have a large group of kids roaming the school corridors looking for another student with a gun to kill before he kills them.
got tonkaed wrote:mtg sorry i missed your post for a bit....anyway
again i dont think it necessarily will make things that more effective. I think the new life situation highlights part of the problem, unless you have the weapon in close proximity to you, it doesnt do you much good. Yes if we give trained security even on a volunteer level guns, it may curb violence, but again this isnt the type of thing you can prove.
But even if guns are in a parking lot, what good would that do most once classes begin, especially if you consider many of the offenders in these situations are willing to die for whatever their cause is anyway. Seemingly if your going to have guns as a defence they need to be near you much of the time. Frankly i dont see the benefit to a group of people of having guns for a lot of people. There are a lot of contingencies for them to be useful.
For an individual i can see the argument, for groups it is much less clear imo.
Think about it. Many schools have different halls, corridors, and floors. Some students will be able to make it out and to their vehicles to get their guns. And if they're smart about it, they'll come in from different directions to surround the shooter.
Also, I was implying individual gun ownership. If people chose to get together for those kinds of things, well, all the more effective for reducing crime in those areas.
great idea, some students will get out to their cars, grab their guns and head into the school looking for the gunman. unfortunately most of them don't know who the gunman is as they bolted from different parts of the school at the sound of gunfire. so now you have a large group of kids roaming the school corridors looking for another student with a gun to kill before he kills them.
no chance of mishap there.
And you presume that the other students would be firing? Unless they came across the gunmen, they would not fire.
you dont think there isnt any possibilty that in a state of probably high levels of paranoia....two people turning a corner seeing the other with a gun may not be compelled to fire? Especially given the fact information is likely to be poor at best in this situation, i have a feeling such an event would be quite possible.
THORNHEART wrote:Once again the right to bear arms has proved it self valid.
only an american could believe everybody has the right to bear arms but then invade another nation because it might be arming itself.
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents
only an american could believe everybody is safer if everybody is armed and ready but then want to invade another nation to prevent them from acquiring equivalent weapony.
Last edited by greenoaks on Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
THORNHEART wrote:Once again the right to bear arms has proved it self valid.
only an american could believe everybody has the right to bear arms but then invade another nation because it might be arming itself.
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents
only an american could believe everybody is safer if everybody is armed and ready but then want to invade another nation to prevent them from acquiring equivalent weapony.
Thanks, very pompous of you. The war in Iraq can be argued elsewhere, this is about the right to bear arms. I disagree with lax gun control but I also disagree with your reasoning.
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents
only an american could believe everybody is safer if everybody is armed and ready but then want to invade another nation to prevent them from acquiring equivalent weapony.
Since your new it doesnt really count, but....comic boy is a euro who is on your side of this issue. Its hard to get the sarcasm down well before you know sort of where everyone is coming from
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents
only an american could believe everybody is safer if everybody is armed and ready but then want to invade another nation to prevent them from acquiring equivalent weapony.
Since your new it doesnt really count, but....comic boy is a euro who is on your side of this issue. Its hard to get the sarcasm down well before you know sort of where everyone is coming from
yes, the emoticon indicates sarcasm. i just used that quote because of how well it portrays the mindset of the americans i was ridiculing.
Can people really believe that buying an assault rifle is a form of self defense? I had a look at the gun that Roger Dodger owns- an AR15 (I know the AR refers to the manufacturer btw). This isn't meant as a personal criticism of RD, but I do have a few mental hurdles I can't overcome when it comes to buying this type of gun.
It's clearly a rifle designed to kill a lot of people, not to defend oneself from an attacker. It couldn't even be easily taken around with you. You'd have to really be looking to shoot someone if you took it anywhere.
And high velocity too! Use it in your home and the bullets are going to pass through any intruder if you hit them, right?. They'll pass through a lot of stuff, won't they? Walls, ceilings... You'll have to hope that anyone in the next room doesn't get hit by accident.
But let's say that you don't buy an assault rifle for self defense (however you justify that particular oxymoron- a defensive assault weapon), maybe you want one for hunting. Hunting is a traditional hobby in many parts of the US, but is it really satisfying to take out a deer with hail of machine gun fire? You can fire a single shot of course, but you may as well use a rifle if that's your game plan.
Of course, the final irony is that if you own an assault rifle, you are introducing to your home an object singularly desired by many criminals. It's been mentioned that a lot of firearm deaths in the US are from stolen guns. Given that criminals are stealing and using these weapons, would you really feel safer having one? Or potentially letting it fall into criminal hands?
I'm interested in finding out why anyone would want a weapon like this. Apologies for length
I wouldl like to share a personal observation:
I am sitting in my office in Canary Wharf, in a room filled with journalists, salespeople, manager types. There are maybe 70 people in here, and I would feel so much more reassured - and safe - if I knew each one of them was packing a gun. The more powerful the better, too.
i never said an assault weapon should be used as a safeguard. i said i used it for target practice and, it hasn't seen the light of day since 2000.
i didn't mean to imply that students should have weapons. i'm saying responsible qualified individuals who are responsible for the safeguarding of people.
school security. mall security, a person who is trained and certified and licensed by the state. def. an adult. i would even go as far to say that anyone over 21.
think about this my son wouldn't go to school in NYC because everyday he had to go thru a metal detector. that would lead me to believe that the school violence is out of control. principals, teachers killed by students.
and, it isn't just here where was it? germany or someplace in europe where a guy went into a school and started shooting up kids.
pennsylvania, amish country. the guy that killed those girls. this is crazy.
The state training and arming everyone over 21 to use guns is called conscription. I doubt that it would be a popular move given the Vietnam era riots and protests.
I don't really want to bang on at you, RD, because I don't know you at all. However, an assault rifle is an expensive thing to buy for target practice, and seems like a dangerous thing to have. If you're not using it, why not get rid of it?
The difference between the tragic school shooting in the US, and those in Germany (and the UK in Dunblane), is that European countries crack down heavily on gun owners and traffickers afterwards. It's too early to say with Germany, but the UK hasn't seen a repeat of the Dunblane tragedy. In the US, however, there are copycats. I read that the killer in the mall shooting wrote that he would now be famous when he died.
The first response of most people to this tragedy would be "Why?", shortly followed by "What was he doing with a gun like that?".
It's genuinely strange for me to see someone react "More people should have guns!" I also noticed that he openly showed it to his landlady, but she thought nothing of it.
Forget about dreams of him getting only a single shot off before being gunned down by an old lady with a magnum, I would have thought it would have been better if he hadn't had a gun in the first place.
