slave to zep Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 so, so sorry for all the victims involved in this. what kind of people are we, anyway? the world is in trouble. at least if it is a bit tougher to get a gun in the first place, like here in australia, then those people who do spur of the moment shootings would find time to re-think? but seems because anyone can own a gun, and they just happen to be in the mood, they can go shoot it. maybe tougher screening is needed before a gun licence is given out. ??? but who knows, maybe nothing can stop evil/crazy minds .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LedZeppfan77 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh bullshit. Its a haven and safe place for Taliban members. Unless the news is lying to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Its a haven and safe place for Taliban members. Unless the news is lying to me I don't know what news you are reading/watching, but this is bullshit, plus you are trying to derail this thread, which is pretty unforgiveable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel Zone Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 What are the odds on getting killed in a traffic accident versus getting killed by a gun, accidentlly or intentionally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 What are the odds on getting killed in a traffic accident versus getting killed by a gun, accidentlly or intentionally? Irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gospel Zone Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Irrelevant. I was looking for numbers more so than words. Edited December 15, 2012 by Gospel Zone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I was looking for numbers more so than words. Ok - sorry - in that case I can't answer without looking it up . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 All the guns in the world were not going to protect those poor children from this madman anymore than they would have protected any of us had we been sitting in a public gathering and he'd walked in. Yes, one of us might have gotten off a shot and put an end to it but, not before many had already been killed. So, if someone at that school - gym teacher, Asst. Principal, etc. - who had a weapon was able to drop this animal after only 5 or 6 shots, that wouldn't have been better? Given the hard choice between 5 or 6 dead and 26 dead, I'll go with the lower number every time. The similarities between the gun control issue and the abortion issue are almost too ironic to believe. As much as I'd like to keep rebutting the posts calling for the need for more gun control laws I've found it's as futile as rebutting posts on most of what is going on in the United States these days. This is the reason gun control - and specifically assault weapon bans - is such a red herring. Most assault weapons are nothing more than existing weapons with altered accessories, e.g., stocks, flash suppressors, and other non-power- or performance-enhancing modifications. They simply LOOK more menacing. We already have bans against owning automatic weapons without a license. More laws/restrictions are not the answer. What are the odds on getting killed in a traffic accident versus getting killed by a gun, accidentlly or intentionally? Not irrelevant at all. No matter how many laws against drunk driving, reckless driving, or speeding there are, and no matter how tough they make those laws, it isn't deterred. But no one considers banning cars. And speaking of waiting to politicize a tragedy, it's never too early to start for the anti-gun crowd. As the timestamp indicates, this prick David Frum, "a contributing editor at Newsweek and The Daily Beast and a CNN contributor", waited barely 1 hour before kickstarting the gun control narrative in the most ghoulish possible terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Shep Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 What are the odds on getting killed in a traffic accident versus getting killed by a gun, accidentlly or intentionally? It's not a question of odds, it's a question of valuing morality over vanity, and not allowing one's paranoia to impinge, whether directly or indirectly, on others' rights to live. It can be argued that the USA fails these tests at both the micro and the macro level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Because that "right" is pointless in the face of this kind of atrocity. And actually pretty sickening. Owning a gun is not sickening, it is what you do with that gun that could, perhaps, make you sickening. Guns, like everything else, are tools and can be used for both good and bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I didn't say that owning a gun was sickening. Arguing that your right to own a gun is of paramount importance is sickening though IMO. I think the lives of children and innocent people are slightly more important than that "right". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, sorry about misunderstanding. I do not think that my right to own a gun is more important than people's lives at all. There are many circumstances where guns saved many people's lives, you just do not hear it on the news because it is not "news." It is exactly what they were built for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 He didn't own those guns,...fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 His mother did.....fool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Oh, sorry about misunderstanding. I do not think that my right to own a gun is more important than people's lives at all. There are many circumstances where guns saved many people's lives, you just do not hear it on the news because it is not "news." It is exactly what they were built for. No worries - we can agree to disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MollyHendrix Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 No worries - we can agree to disagree Disagreeing is fine with me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I didn't say that owning a gun was sickening. Arguing that your right to own a gun is of paramount importance is sickening though IMO. I think the lives of children and innocent people are slightly more important than that "right". Sorry, but that rationale doesn't hold up to the logic sniff test. That is the basic sentiment behind more government control and less privacy/freedom. If you support such rationale, then by extension you would support government monitoring of your entire life for your own protection. There's a fine balance between liberty and safety, and they are inversely proportional. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. As a parent, my heart is heavy-laden at this tragedy and it's consequences. No one wants to imagine the grief these families are enduring. And I certainly can't speak for any of them. I and most others in this country, however, would not be willing to sacrifice my/our right to liberty and privacy in the hope that something as horrible as this might not happen again. Would it have been any different if the guy had firebombed the classroom with a molotov cocktail, or tossed an explosive into the classroom? Removing guns does not remove evil intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Sorry, but that rationale doesn't hold up to the logic sniff test. That is the basic sentiment behind more government control and less privacy/freedom. If you support such rationale, then by extension you would support government monitoring of your entire life for your own protection. Well , see, it doesn't actually HAVE to lead to that, it hasn't here, and we have strict gun laws. The UK is far from perfect, but the different attitude to guns here WORKS. That's the bottom line for me. The story coming out in fullness now is just so desperately sad. I cannot extend enough sympathy for those who have been affected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Sorry, but that rationale doesn't hold up to the logic sniff test. That is the basic sentiment behind more government control and less privacy/freedom. If you support such rationale, then by extension you would support government monitoring of your entire life for your own protection. There's a fine balance between liberty and safety, and they are inversely proportional. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. As a parent, my heart is heavy-laden at this tragedy and it's consequences. No one wants to imagine the grief these families are enduring. And I certainly can't speak for any of them. I and most others in this country, however, would not be willing to sacrifice my/our right to liberty and privacy in the hope that something as horrible as this might not happen again. Would it have been any different if the guy had firebombed the classroom with a molotov cocktail, or tossed an explosive into the classroom? Removing guns does not remove evil intent. I think your way off the mark here. For my money, I'm not against people being allowed to own guns, I just don't think that it should be an inherent right to each individual just because they happen to be a citizen of a country. We don't even give out drivers licences that easily Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Shep Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 He didn't own those guns,...fool. Yes, and that's the point. With rights come responsibilities; quite apart from feeling the need to own an assault rifle or whatever the fuck it was in Connecticut, ffs, the mother either (1) deliberately gave her son access to the weapon or (2) failed to implement sufficient security arrangements to prevent him or anyone else from accessing it. I've lost count of the number of times we hear about these events and later discover that the shooter was using weapons belonging to his parents or a relative. Now, call me old-fashioned, but if I were pathetic enough to feel the need to own weapons to validate my existence, I would make absolutely goddamn sure that there was NO FUCKING WAY that my kids could access them, whether deliberately or accidentally. And yet it happens, time and again. What the fuck is the matter with these people?? The only solution to this obscenity would be the total withdrawal of everyone's right to own weapons, for the weapons to be confiscated, and for everyone to have to re-apply for the right to own a basic, single-shot gun, for self defence and/or shooting varmint - on the classroom principle that, when somebody spoils things, they spoil them for everybody. At the very least, they should then be forced to demonstrate adequate security arrangements, which could for example include the requirement for proper impregnable safes to be purchased and installed, and the stipulation that no more than say 6 bullets could be kept at home at any one time - after all, how many slugs does it take to knock out an intruder? For extra ammo, they would have to go to a shop, and then return the spent casings before being allowed to take any more. If the USA genuinely wishes to be thought of as a paragon of civilised society, it really needs to get its house in order, I'm afraid. That is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Tim McVeigh 9/11 No guns involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 So what?????? That doesn't change anything AT ALL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 (edited) Yes, and that's the point. With rights come responsibilities; quite apart from feeling the need to own an assault rifle or whatever the fuck it was in Connecticut, ffs, the mother either (1) deliberately gave her son access to the weapon or (2) failed to implement sufficient security arrangements to prevent him or anyone else from accessing it. I've lost count of the number of times we hear about these events and later discover that the shooter was using weapons belonging to his parents or a relative. Now, call me old-fashioned, but if I were pathetic enough to feel the need to own weapons to validate my existence, I would make absolutely goddamn sure that there was NO FUCKING WAY that my kids could access them, whether deliberately or accidentally. And yet it happens, time and again. What the fuck is the matter with these people?? The only solution to this obscenity would be the total withdrawal of everyone's right to own weapons, for the weapons to be confiscated, and for everyone to have to re-apply for the right to own a basic, single-shot gun, for self defence and/or shooting varmint - on the classroom principle that, when somebody spoils things, they spoil them for everybody. At the very least, they should then be forced to demonstrate adequate security arrangements, which could for example include the requirement for proper impregnable safes to be purchased and installed, and the stipulation that no more than say 6 bullets could be kept at home at any one time - after all, how many slugs does it take to knock out an intruder? For extra ammo, they would have to go to a shop, and then return the spent casings before being allowed to take any more. If the USA genuinely wishes to be thought of as a paragon of civilised society, it really needs to get its house in order, I'm afraid. That is all. Ever shot a gun in anger? Edited December 15, 2012 by Anjin-san Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I think your way off the mark here. For my money, I'm not against people being allowed to own guns, I just don't think that it should be an inherent right to each individual just because they happen to be a citizen of a country. We don't even give out drivers licences that easily We don't give out gun licenses as easily as drivers licenses, so that is purely rhetoric. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that there should be no qualifier to gun ownership. Background checks are already in place nationwide. This animal basically stole the legally-owned guns he used. Much like a driver with a suspended license for repeat DUIs takes his mother's car and drives drunk and ends up killing an innocent family. The bottom line, much like the fight against terrorism, there is no defense against the lone attacker who has made the decision to kill himself and others. We can institute precautions - as we already have - but the nature of liberty in our society is what allows these attacks to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anjin-san Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 So what?????? That doesn't change anything AT ALL. Bingo! Wow,... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.