Gun debate

[Slavic]

British police don't carry weapons, James.

 

Is British police an oxymoron???

[Red]

Is British police an oxymoron???

 

Correct Stick > Gun

 

 

@contempt:

 

When I'm at home (in my room 99% of the time) I do have 2 weapons within reach at all times. I'm not as likely to get mugged when outside because I go to populated places and there are frankly just a lot of people around when I'm out. I don't walk alone in dark alleys so to speak. At night however when people are asleep in their homes is when most break-ins occur around here and when I have my babies within short reach.

 

If Maryland didn't have such liberal gun laws I would have a pistol on my persons at all times.

 

I've read articles about street robberies and gun crimes rising in the U.K. since they banned them. Weird how you ban something, yet it's illegal use increases.

 

 

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

[HankTheTank]

i have seen (well not seen but herd about) alot of shootings and what not in very crouded places... (pardon my spelling but) take columbine for example, or the (pardon my spelling again) virgina tech one...

 

guns are not just pulled out walking down the street there are many MANY diffrent cases when attacks happen in couded places...

[Red]

i have seen (well not seen but herd about) alot of shootings and what not in very crouded places... (pardon my spelling but) take columbine for example, or the (pardon my spelling again) virgina tech one...

 

guns are not just pulled out walking down the street there are many MANY diffrent cases when attacks happen in couded places...

 

That's many?

 

And imagine if just one or two of the students at Virginia Tech were carrying firearms, they could have shot Cho instead of all of them being helpless while waiting for the cops. Yet another reason FOR being able to carry a firearm.

 

 

and it's "crowded".

[Slavic]

Hmmm, instead of one person committing a sinful crime, we can have two or three people. Sounds fantastic.

[LitKey]

Hmmm, instead of one person committing a sinful crime, we can have two or three people. Sounds fantastic.

 

Are you freaking kidding me? You're saying that if people had guns and killed Cho, saving many lives, would be a SINFUL CRIME? Wow.

[contempt]

That's many?

 

And imagine if just one or two of the students at Virginia Tech were carrying firearms, they could have shot Cho instead of all of them being helpless while waiting for the cops. Yet another reason FOR being able to carry a firearm.

and it's "crowded".

 

That's a flawed, half-baked argumentation.

 

If 2 students of thousands of students (VA Tech: ~ 26,000) had carried firearms, that wouldn't have helped anything. Surely, without anyone having a gun, they were at Cho's mercy. If, on the other hand, everyone had had a gun at the time Cho was carrying out his sick plan, there might a been fewer fatalities or more, depending on the reaction of the students and their accuracy of firing their guns.

 

contempt

[Red]

Slavic: Being a non-believer I have no problem committing this "Sinful" crime of self-defense.

 

That's a flawed, half-baked argumentation.

 

If 2 students of thousands of students (VA Tech: ~ 26,000) had carried firearms, that wouldn't have helped anything. Surely, without anyone having a gun, they were at Cho's mercy. If, on the other hand, everyone had had a gun at the time Cho was carrying out his sick plan, there might a been fewer fatalities or more, depending on the reaction of the students and their accuracy of firing their guns.

 

 

Quite frankly I think it's all of you and other people who are anti-gun that I find to have half-baked peacenik ideals.

 

contempt

 

I meant two students in THAT particular classroom, meaning throughout the school there would be many many more armed people. More people would not have died if other students could have defended themselves. It's not that hard to shoot a person 20 feet away from you. Who knows, maybe Cho would have stopped upon realization that other students could retaliate right then and there.

 

Why the hell would I say 2 students for the whole campus, that's just asinine.

 

 

 

Havok:

 

The Police wouldn't have simply shot them, once they killed Cho and laid down their firearms and came outside, the other students could corroborate the fact that Cho was the original shooter and the others acted in self-defense.

 

And what happened WAS preventable if as I said just a couple of students in that class had firearms. But if we're to take your stance and believe that none of us should be able to defend ourselves and instead wait for the calvary to arrive then yes, you're correct, it's not preventable. We should all just throw our hands up and accept death at the hands of others.

 

Jesus when the hell did the feminization of the media and castration of the public finally kick in?

[Red]

If the whole of the campus had weapons, then how can you be assured none of them wanted to go on killing sprees, or would have helped him?

 

As Demonstrated by Cho, you don't have to have permission to carry guns to go on a shooting spree. But knowing that nobody else on campus can stop you from doing it is even worse.

 

As someone stated above it would be "mutually assured destruction" if other students had a gun, as opposed "just you guys being destroyed while I sit here and reload because none of you can do anything about it".

 

 

Simple question for you Havok or you other guys; If you were at Virginia Tech that day, and Cho walked into your classroom and pulled out a gun, would you want to be armed or unarmed?

[Oak]

Well you're all avoiding the core issue there, which is WHY he did it. The Columbine kids and this guy were obvious social outcasts, but does being socially inept lead one to carry out mass murder? For being different these people were persecuted by other people to an extent that drove them right off the edge. Instead of applying a scapegoat ideology to the gunmen of these schools, do the harder thing and try to realize what malfunction within the social pecking order causes such hatred to develop and cause severe damage. The guy often spoke about committing the deed far prior to its actual occurrence, but simply because he was deemed an unimportant loser, he wasn't taken seriously.

 

The guns are simply an easily obtainable weapon that have little to do with the actual motive, however, had the laws been stricter and Cho hadn't obtained guns so easily, I highly doubt he would have gone on his little rampage. More guns means a higher percentage of shootings, period. If another student had a gun, and shot Cho, its still murder.

 

Applying the "fight fire with fire" analogy to gun control is not only counter-productive toward creating a safer environment, its just plain irrational, unless of course, propagating violence and mass paranoia is the goal intended. Looser gun laws also means more people capable of murder, like Cho, will have an easier path to bloodshed.

 

A person without a gun is not likely to shoot anyone else, so I'm missing the logic by increasing the attainability thereof. The best and only solution would simply be to develop stricter gun laws with much harsher enforcement, and slowly remove them from circulating withing the country, stop all manufacturing of them, and ban any and all domestic ownership/usage.

 

Unfortunately, that will never happen, the paranoid consumerist driven society of the USA and elsewhere are addicted to guns, to the point that there is no real solution for it anymore, removing the firearms industry would be impossible, much less the psychological dependency a regrettable majority of people have developed. So yes, let everyone own a firearm, and maybe the problem with take care of itself. Just remember how peaceful the lawless pioneering west USA was in its early days of growth, and with the advance in weapons technology we have now, I'm willing to wager the environment would surpass even the pacifistic serenity of former periods when everyone was entitled to carry a firearm.