• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Another Mall Shooting

lionking

In the Peanut Gallery
lionking
Joined
Jan 23, 2007
Messages
56,655
Location
Melbourne
Another Mall shooting in the US. When are you guys going to ban hand guns, semi-automatics and other firearms designed to shoot people?
 
We aren't. While the deaths in Nebraska are tragic, it would be more tragic if Americans relinquished their best hope for resisting a despotic government, should it ever become necessary.
 
We aren't. While the deaths in Nebraska are tragic, it would be more tragic if Americans relinquished their best hope for resisting a despotic government, should it ever become necessary.
Click to expand...

I think there are some persuasive arguments for not banning guns, but this isn't one of them. Do you honestly think that a load of handguns and a some semi-automatics are going to allow you to take down the government? Apart from this, do you favour the legalisation of other weapons that would enable the american populace to take on the government better? Should people be allowed to stock up on explosives? Mines? Should they be allowed to own tanks and helicopter gunships?
 
bokonon said:
We aren't. While the deaths in Nebraska are tragic, it would be more tragic if Americans relinquished their best hope for resisting a despotic government, should it ever become necessary.
Click to expand...
You are joking aren't you?
 
When are you guys going to ban hand guns, semi-automatics and other firearms designed to shoot people?
Click to expand...

That would be awesome. I'd love it if only the insane and criminals had guns.

Here's what I think. We need more citizens walking around ARMED and TRAINED so when something like this occurs the dumbass can be taken out before killing such a large number of people.

If a professor had had a gun at Virginia Tech, less people might have been killed.
If some shopping soccer mom owned a 38 auto and knew how to use it and happened to be nearby the 19 year old loser, she might have ended the tragedy sooner.


Guns aren't going anywhere, and banning them only takes them away from law-abiding citizens.
 
That's an analysis of the situation? For what's it worth I worked for Victoria Police and the best solution for violence is for "law abiding" citizens to walk the streets without weapons or fear IMHO.
 
lionking said:
That's an analysis of the situation? For what's it worth I worked for Victoria Police and the best solution for violence is for "law abiding" citizens to walk the streets without weapons or fear IMHO.
Click to expand...
Oddly, we do that here also.

And I'm sure that the US having 15 times the population of Australia has nothing at all to do with having more crazy people. :rolleyes:
 
For what's it worth I worked for Victoria Police and the best solution for violence is for "law abiding" citizens to walk the streets without weapons or fear IMHO.
Click to expand...

Without any weapons?

What about a woman who has pepper spray? Should she give not have it?
What about someone who has taken martial arts classes. Should they not be allowed to use it to defend themselves from an attacker?

Walking around unarmed is a sure way to die if someone else wants you dead and has a knife or gun, and is willing to use it.

What about the thousands of crimes which are prevented/mitigated each year because a law-abiding individual was armed.
 
Doesn't Australia have some of the highest rates of rape in the western world? Isn't it time that Australians "disarmed" potential rapists pre-emptively? It's for the good of the country!
 
Increase the amount of accidental gun deaths by an order of magnitude for the mere possibility of stopping some shooting sprees half way through that kill only about a dozen each? There are often over 28,000 gun related deaths a year in the US.

The idea of successfully fighting a tyrannical US government with guns has as much chance of being valid as a cargo cult in the south Pacific. Citizens should either be able to arm to the teeth with modern military armaments or the idea should be left in past centuries along with wooden teeth and straight men wearing fabulous wigs.

cloudshipsrule said:
That would be awesome. I'd love it if only the insane and criminals had guns.

Here's what I think. We need more citizens walking around ARMED and TRAINED so when something like this occurs the dumbass can be taken out before killing such a large number of people.

If a professor had had a gun at Virginia Tech, less people might have been killed.
If some shopping soccer mom owned a 38 auto and knew how to use it and happened to be nearby the 19 year old loser, she might have ended the tragedy sooner.


Guns aren't going anywhere, and banning them only takes them away from law-abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
Doesn't Australia have some of the highest rates of rape in the western world? Isn't it time that Australians "disarmed" potential rapists pre-emptively? It's for the good of the country!
Click to expand...

What a stupid comment. But, yes, Australia has the worlds highest rate of rapes per capita.

However, more pertinent to the topic at hand, we also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Couldn't have anything to do with our gun laws could it?
 
Damien Evans said:
What a stupid comment. But, yes, Australia has the worlds highest rate of rapes per capita.
Click to expand...
The disarm I say! :D

However, more pertinent to the topic at hand, we also have one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Couldn't have anything to do with our gun laws could it?
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. What is the non-firearm homicide rate compared to the US? Is it possible that the US rate has more to do with the proliferation of drug gangs than firearm laws?
 
Increase the amount of accidental gun deaths by an order of magnitude for the mere possibility of stopping some shooting sprees half way through that kill only about a dozen each? There are often over 28,000 gun related deaths a year in the US.
Click to expand...

Then I say gun education needs to be a part of the public education curriculum, no?
Do you have any idea how many guns are in the US? And you think banning them would actually get rid of them?

Cocaine is banned, I can walk down the street and get it. It's everywhere.
Pot is banned in most states, think I can get it if I want it? Um, that would be a yes.
Cuban Cigars are banned. I know individuals who smoke em' every weekend.
There are still dry counties in the US. Think anyone living there has alcohol?
Think everyone obeys the speed limits? I mean, it's the law, right?

You ban guns, and competent law-abiding citizens are the ONLY ones who suffer. Criminals will STILL get weapons. Anyone who doesn't care about the law WILL STILL have access to guns if they want them, and they will want them, and they will get them.

Latent, where do you get your numbers? Are you sure they are accurate?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html
 
WildCat said:
The disarm I say! :D


Maybe, maybe not. What is the non-firearm homicide rate compared to the US? Is it possible that the US rate has more to do with the proliferation of drug gangs than firearm laws?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, I'm not a criminal profiler.
 
cloudshipsrule said:
Then I say gun education needs to be a part of the public education curriculum, no?
Do you have any idea how many guns are in the US? And you think banning them would actually get rid of them?
Click to expand...
And of course the laws in the "gun-free UK" didn't seem to stop the IRA etc from amassing quite an arsenal of military-grade weaponry. And if you can't keep them out of a tiny country like NI, good luck with keeping them out of a country where they already proliferate by a hundred million.
 
lionking said:
Another Mall shooting in the US. When are you guys going to ban hand guns, semi-automatics and other firearms designed to shoot people?
Click to expand...

How do you decide if a certain type of firearm is designed to shoot people? Are they somehow manufactured with this intent? Are these "designed to shoot people " guns not suited for other uses? Thanks.

Ranb
 
Ranb said:
How do you decide if a certain type of firearm is designed to shoot people? Are they somehow manufactured with this intent? Are these "designed to shoot people " guns not suited for other uses? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Different models of goods are manufactured for different purposes--this is true for guns, computers, musical instruments, what have you. The fact that they're geared for that purpose doesn't mean that they can't be used for others. Examples:

A computer with a high-end graphics card and sound card is typically engineered for high-performance gaming. That does not mean it can't be used as a web server, but that wouldn't be what it was designed for, and it would be something of a waste.

An electric guitar is not designed for bluegrass music, but that doesn't mean you can't use it to play bluegrass. (If you're playing with other people, you're probably going to get some odd looks, though.)

Handguns are designed to be personal weapons (i.e., self-defense, other person-to-person shooting), not hunting weapons. Can you use a handgun for hunting? Sure, though I wouldn't recommend trying to take down a bear with a 9mm. You could also tote along a shotgun for protection while you jog in the park. Neither is an optimal use of the tool, however.
 
chocolatepossum said:
I think there are some persuasive arguments for not banning guns, but this isn't one of them. Do you honestly think that a load of handguns and a some semi-automatics are going to allow you to take down the government? Apart from this, do you favour the legalisation of other weapons that would enable the american populace to take on the government better? Should people be allowed to stock up on explosives? Mines? Should they be allowed to own tanks and helicopter gunships?
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, this unpersuasive argument is the reason the 2nd amendment was ratified. As far as taking down the government goes, I don't know, but I suspect the answer is yes. There are 300 million citizens. I don't know how many of those are armed adults, but I assume it's a sizable percentage. Whether or not they could take down a despotic government, they could still put quite a dent in its ability to enforce its will on the majority of people.

I don't own a gun myself, but I still favor keeping them available, and it isn't because I think people need to eat more venison.
 
Washington, DC has had an almost total ban on private gun ownership since 1976. Here are the murder statistics for DC 1960 - 1976 (rates are murders per thousand population). They don't make a terribly persuasive case that outlawing guns makes you safer. The murder rate dropped for a few years, but soon was higher - far higher - than it had been before the gun ban. Look at the horrifying rates beginning in 1988, which have only recently come back down to the level they were at before the ban. Source.
 

Attachments

  • dcmurders.jpg
    dcmurders.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 25
Cleon said:
Handguns are designed to be personal weapons (i.e., self-defense, other person-to-person shooting), not hunting weapons. Can you use a handgun for hunting? Sure, though I wouldn't recommend trying to take down a bear with a 9mm.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me of that scene in The Deer Hunter where the guys are all in the car driving out into the mountains to hunt deer and John Cazale's character has brought none of the equipment or outfitting he needs except, ridiculously, a pistol.

DeNiro: "This is this!"

What a great movie.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by chocolatepossum
I think there are some persuasive arguments for not banning guns, but this isn't one of them. Do you honestly think that a load of handguns and a some semi-automatics are going to allow you to take down the government? Apart from this, do you favour the legalisation of other weapons that would enable the american populace to take on the government better? Should people be allowed to stock up on explosives? Mines? Should they be allowed to own tanks and helicopter gunships?
As far as I can tell, this unpersuasive argument is the reason the 2nd amendment was ratified. As far as taking down the government goes, I don't know, but I suspect the answer is yes. There are 300 million citizens. I don't know how many of those are armed adults, but I assume it's a sizable percentage. Whether or not they could take down a despotic government, they could still put quite a dent in its ability to enforce its will on the majority of people.

I don't own a gun myself, but I still favor keeping them available, and it isn't because I think people need to eat more venison.
Click to expand...

What about the questions I asked? Should people be allowed to own explosives, tanks, mines, missiles etc. (weapons designed to take on modern armies)? If not, why not?
 
chocolatepossum said:
What about the questions I asked? Should people be allowed to own explosives, tanks, mines, missiles etc. (weapons designed to take on modern armies)? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
I think a case could be made, but I'm not personally in favor of it. I prefer to see the power diffused among lots of "little people," rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. If it were legal to own tanks and missiles, only the rich HumVee-driving jerks and druglords would be able to afford them, which, in my opinion, would not be in keeping with the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And of course the laws in the "gun-free UK" didn't seem to stop the IRA etc from amassing quite an arsenal of military-grade weaponry.
Click to expand...


The vast majority of them from the USA, as it happens.
 
I think a case could be made, but I'm not personally in favor of it. I prefer to see the power diffused among lots of "little people," rather than concentrated in the hands of a few. If it were legal to own tanks and missiles, only the rich HumVee-driving jerks and druglords would be able to afford them, which, in my opinion, would not be in keeping with the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

But if they werer cheaper so that everyone could get involved that would be ok? Cruise missiles for all?
 
BPSCG said:
Thanks for reminding me of that scene in The Deer Hunter where the guys are all in the car driving out into the mountains to hunt deer and John Cazale's character has brought none of the equipment or outfitting he needs except, ridiculously, a pistol.

DeNiro: "This is this!"

What a great movie.
Click to expand...

Wow, I'd forgotten all about that...Haven't seen Deer Hunter in years.

Time to adjust Ye Olde Netflix Queue...
 
Cleon said:
.....Handguns are designed to be personal weapons (i.e., self-defense, other person-to-person shooting), not hunting weapons. Can you use a handgun for hunting? Sure, though I wouldn't recommend trying to take down a bear with a 9mm. You could also tote along a shotgun for protection while you jog in the park. Neither is an optimal use of the tool, however.
Click to expand...

Handguns are designed and intended to be shot with one hand. The government (27 CFR 479.11) defines them as; A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile.....when held in one hand,.....

This is a very broad definition. Handguns come in a variety of sizes, calibers and configurations. I own two handguns that are well suited for taking large game animals out to two hundred yards. Some people on this forum tend to restrict their idea of handguns to smaller revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. This is a mistake when talking about handguns in general.

Ranb
 
chocolatepossum said:
But if they werer cheaper so that everyone could get involved that would be ok? Cruise missiles for all?
Click to expand...
No, I kind of like the idea of accountability too. A rifle has a range of a few hundred yards, and you have to be there in person to use it. When a hothead gets hold of one, and uses it inappropriately, chances are that he can be observed and held accountable.

I don't expect it to happen, but if it does ever come down to "People vs U.S. Government," there will be time to acquire cruise missiles and mines then. Right now, I think guns is the appropriate level of armament.
 
bokonon said:
As far as I can tell, this unpersuasive argument is the reason the 2nd amendment was ratified. As far as taking down the government goes, I don't know, but I suspect the answer is yes. There are 300 million citizens. I don't know how many of those are armed adults, but I assume it's a sizable percentage. Whether or not they could take down a despotic government, they could still put quite a dent in its ability to enforce its will on the majority of people.

I don't own a gun myself, but I still favor keeping them available, and it isn't because I think people need to eat more venison.
Click to expand...


I agree. Protection against the government was the reason for the Second Amendment. I agree that it is appropriate and necessary. I don't own a gun - depression makes that unwise - but I'm glad that many others do.
 
lionking said:
Another Mall shooting in the US. When are you guys going to ban hand guns, semi-automatics and other firearms designed to shoot people?
Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry. I completely forgot. It is right here on my "to do" list:

"Influence the minds of millions of people and/or rewrite the constitution."

I don't know how it slipped my mind.
 
How about we prevent the grooming of losers in this country? The rational one will tell you this was a kid who thought personal responsibility was ******** and blamed all of his problems on everyone else. While the psychiatrist will get all touchy feely, refuse to classify anyone because their goal eventually is to make all English words meaningless and narrow-minded, and then blame his problems on some mythical energy.

Bring back personal responsibility!
 
The NPR story I heard this morning said that this wretch used an SKS (modified to feed from an AK mag; I don't know if they got that detail right, but such things are on the market). Pretty hard to legislate against long arms, even a rinky-dink bullet-squirter like that.
 
Ranb said:
This is a very broad definition. Handguns come in a variety of sizes, calibers and configurations. I own two handguns that are well suited for taking large game animals out to two hundred yards.
Click to expand...

And I know a guy with a Harley cruiser that can out-run a Honda CBR. That doesn't change the fact that cruisers (especially Harleys) are not particularly engineered for racing.
 
lionking said:
Another Mall shooting in the US. When are you guys going to ban hand guns, semi-automatics and other firearms designed to shoot people?
Click to expand...
You mean those devices that legally in the hands of someone in the store might have stopped him? He had, by the way, a regular rifle as I heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom