VA shooting

[cybacaT]

jhony

Quote:
In Australia we were told EXACTLY the same thing by the gun lobby. We outlawed guns, and guess what? Gun crimes have dropped, gun deaths have dropped - we don't have criminals armed with guns out roaming the streets.

Declined but not done away with. In Australia only criminals have guns. The reality of the situation is apparent. Guns still exist, and only the criminals have them.

Did you know that repeating a lie - however many times - still doesn't make it true?
The BS "if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns" has obviously been tatooed on your brain. Hence I encouraged you to check your facts. I live in Australia - gun crime are virtually unheard of. Can you even imagine what that's like - living in a country where guns deaths are a very rare occurence?

America is different. Realize this. Guns deaths would drop if we outlawed guns, however, the statistics would most certainly reflect a frightening trend. Less suicides, less deaths from self-defense (i.e. lawfully armed citizens shooting assailants in protection of serious bodily harm or death), and more deaths from violent criminals shooting unarmed homeowners/citizens.

Short term you might be right. It will take a time to get all the guns in, and criminals will hold onto theirs the longest. Give it 10-20 years, and you'll have a completely different culture though. One where nancy-boys don't need to hide behind guns because the criminals don't have guns. One where a gun death is a major deal because they're such a rare event.

You seem awful preoccupied with the safety and well being of intruders. Why is this? ****ing *****. Coward. Chicken **** mother****er. Afraid to kill someone that treads upon your turf?

HANG ON...aren't you the coward, *****, chicken **** MF that's HIDING behind a gun?!??!? Bwahahahahahah - you make me laugh dude. Only someone weak needs a weapon, and when you need to revert to a gun then you're just a little girl in my eyes.
As for killing someone - no...even if they broke into my house, I see no need to kill someone. The last 2 times someone tried to get into my house, I confronted them man-to-man, and both situations ended peacefully. How would my life be now if I was a scared little coward who pulled out a gun and killed those 2 people? I'd be a lower form of scum than them.

You like to gamble with your life? Take the chance? You have seven minutes.

There's a chance of a nuclear weapon hitting my city too...but I'm no bunker-builder. My life is focused on living, not obsessed with panic, fear, insecurity and trying to plan for the rarest of situations that might happen.

A fully alarmed house means the police might be 7 minutes away, but I'm about 30 seconds away from the break-in, and my neighbours (baseball-bat wielding Romanians and Italians) are about 2 minutes away. The intruder has no chance, and no-one will die. That's just fear-mongering to try and justify why you feel the need to hide behind a gun in your house.

Quote:
the big picture is 30,000 dead Americans which you're smugly prepared to write-off as acceptable losses because you like to pack a gun.

Yep. If my child was shot dead today by a gunman, I would blame the gunman, not the gun. Same if she was run over by a drunk driver, I would not blame the automobile manufacturer.

Purpose of a car: Transport.
Importance to the country, citizens, economy: Huge.
Relative deaths to utility value: Low.

Purpose of a gun: To kill things.
Importance to the country: Beyond police and army, very low importance.
Relative deaths to utility value: Off the scale.

Compare apples with apples dude.

 

[Jhony5]

Purpose of a car: Transport.
Importance to the country, citizens, economy: Huge.
Relative deaths to utility value: Low.

Purpose of a gun: To kill things.
Importance to the country: Beyond police and army, very low importance.
Relative deaths to utility value: Off the scale.

It is what it is.

Car crashes — also called road traffic accidents (RTAs), traffic collisions, auto accidents, road accidents, personal injury collisions, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), — kill an estimated 1.2 million people worldwide each year, and injure about forty times this number (

Using your logic against guns, I could say to you, is it worth 1.2 million lives a year just so people can drive?

HANG ON...aren't you the coward, *****, chicken **** MF that's HIDING behind a gun?!??!? Bwahahahahahah - you make me laugh dude. Only someone weak needs a weapon, and when you need to revert to a gun then you're just a little girl in my eyes.

Next you're gonna tell me I'm compensating for a small phallus. My fists are for punks with loud mouths. My guns are for cowards that depend on their victims being unarmed. Defending yourself with deadly force is hardly indicative of cowardice. Are you tellin me that you would bring your fists to a knife fight? Answer that honestly.

 

[cybacaT]

Quote:
Car crashes

 

[Jhony5]

Nothing at all like guns. Having guns in the hands of citizens doesn't offer 1 iota of benefit to society...

You don't think saving lives by way of self defense is beneficial to citizens? People use guns to thwart violence everyday in America. These stories aren't reported by the media because they lack the sensational value of the successful execution of violent crime.
I've carried a gun for over 15 years and only once have I drawn it, and that was to remove a threat. A guy got so pissed at me in traffic over something so minor, he stopped his car and got out, opened my door and wanted to have a ****ing fight right there in the middle of the road. One peek at my sidearm sent his ass running back to his car. Violence evaded by show of force.

Some crims in the US have fully automatic weapons - don't tell me you're going to bring a shotgun to the party and get mowed down!

I'll be straight up with ya. Despite the fact that I carry a sidearm, and the fact that I keep a fully loaded 12 gage in my home, I go against the grain on the issue of assault riffles. They are completely unnecessary in the hands of citizens and should be outlawed. Illegal and impractical for hunting. Illegal and impractical for carrying on ones self, for defensive purposes. The only legal outlet for them is for target shooting, which is not worth the risk. Assault riffles are too ****ing dangerous in the hands of a madman.

My brothers good friend on the IPD was killed a few years back by a mentally defective asshole with an assault riffle. He had just gotten his riffles back from a judges order.

There is a big 'ol ****ing difference between a 45 cal semi auto pistol, and an AK-47. Huge difference.
I met this officer. He attended my brothers wedding. This is one of those cases in which there was plenty of external blame for this tragic shooting, other than the gun itself.
http://www.indygov.org/eGov/IMPD/About/Memoriam/tlaird.htm

Read this. This ****ing nutjob was given his weapons back after unbelievable circumstances. A diagnosed schizophrenic with a violent past was given back his SKS rifle, a .357-caliber pistol, and a .22-caliber derringer. Un-****ing-believable

Again, I'm all for strict gun control. Not for gun abolishment, however.

 

[hugo]

1991 9.8
1992 9.3
1993 9.5
1994 9.0
1995 8.2
1996 7.4
1997 6.8
1998 6.3
1999 5.7
2000 5.5

Homicide rates US from 1991 -2000 notice a greater than 40% decline despite no federal gun buyback program. Assuming the gun buyback program was responsible for Australia's similar drop in homicides is just that--an assumption.

Let us remember that 55+% of them 30K gun deaths are suicides and that Australia has a higher suicide rate than the US and Japan (which has few guns) a much higher suicide rate than either the US or Australia.

Hitler confiscated the Jews guns before he rounded them up into concentration camps. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment (as is the rest of the Bill of Rights) is protection from federal tyranny

 

[cybacaT]

jhony

Sounds like we're finding some middle ground. Given the entrenched gun culture in the US, and the massive number of weapons, probably the best that can be hoped for is a minimisation of damage by tighter regulations on the types of weapons available.

A ban on assault rifles, automatic weapons etc would be a good start, and might help stop some of mass killings that society wants stopped.

 

[cybacaT]

hugo

Homicide rates US from 1991 -2000 notice a greater than 40% decline despite no federal gun buyback program. Assuming the gun buyback program was responsible for Australia's similar drop in homicides is just that--an assumption.

Actually no. Australia had a declining rate of gun deaths - that was rapidly accelerated the year the gun laws were introduced.

Let us remember that 55+% of them 30K gun deaths are suicides and that Australia has a higher suicide rate than the US and Japan (which has few guns) a much higher suicide rate than either the US or Australia.

Australia has one of the highest rates of suicide in the world - and has for years. Not sure why people revert to guns when there are far easier, less-violent methods. Yet it does bring up the point that someone who is considering suicide, and has ready access to a gun, can top themselves quickly. Someone who doesn't have easy access to a gun has to put some thought into how they'll do it - and by the time they've put that thought in, there's a chance they'll have reconsidered, or the immediate cause of their angst may have passed.
Ditto for any number of other situations - car incidents, domestic clashes etc - if there's a gun involved, instantly someone can be killed without thought or consideration - in the heat of the moment.

Hitler confiscated the Jews guns before he rounded them up into concentration camps. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment (as is the rest of the Bill of Rights) is protection from federal tyranny

I don't buy into that scaremongering. There'll be no repeat of Hitler so long as we have freedom of the press. You'll get ample warning before there could be another Hitler, and be able to take action to stop it.

 

[Jhony5]

Hitler confiscated the Jews guns before he rounded them up into concentration camps. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment (as is the rest of the Bill of Rights) is protection from federal tyranny

This notion is outdated and no longer has an applicable purpose. Our society has developed far beyond the need for a citizen militia as a means of countering the American military. I will not be a fool enough to use this tired old excuse as a means to bear arms. I take a far more realistic approach. I want to protect myself from real threats, not ones contrived by paranoid gun nuts.

Thats all I ask. Allow me to keep my sidearm as long as I don't produce good reason to be disarmed.

 

[hugo]

This notion is outdated and no longer has an applicable purpose. Our society has developed far beyond the need for a citizen militia as a means of countering the American military. I will not be a fool enough to use this tired old excuse as a means to bear arms. I take a far more realistic approach. I want to protect myself from real threats, not ones contrived by paranoid gun nuts.

I am sure the Germans felt the same way in 1928.

 

[Jhony5]

I am sure the Germans felt the same way in 1928.

Are you equating the current political atmosphere in America to that of circa 1920's Germany? Please say yes.

 

[snafu]

Are you equating the current political atmosphere in America to that of circa 1920's Germany? Please say yes.

Well the folks at Ruby Ridge seem to think so.

 

[Jhony5]

Well the folks at Ruby Ridge seem to think so.

Thats a bit of a stretch.
Fact is Ruby Ridge could have been stopped before it started if Randy Weaver had just turned himself in on his warrant. A warrant that should never had been issued, granted. They changed his court date and suspiciously "forgot" to tell him. When his new court date passed, a warrant was issued. However he knew of the warrant and the authorities had communicated with him threw his lawyer. If he had turned himself in like he was told to, his wife and child would still be alive.
That doesn't make what happened right, but it was avoidable.

What I said about the original purpose of citizen armament, and the formation of militia, being an outdated ideal was true. We cannot, as citizens, arm ourselves to a point whereas we can pose a substantial defense against our government. To combat American government forces we would need rocket launchers, tanks, ground to air missiles, hundreds of thousands of rounds of armor piercing bullets, gas masks, .50 cal machine guns, fighter jets, helicopters and so on.

All of these things did not exist when the right to bear arms was extended.

In those days it was not only conceivable for a citizen militia to effectively combat the government. We (meaning the revolutionist) had just done exactly that.

Ruby ridge was a shining example of abuse of power by the local and federal authorities. That being said, do you honestly ****ing think ruby ridge could have been anything but a tragedy for the victims, no matter what armaments they had at their disposal?

In the spirit of the original post topic of this thread, lets think about what happened at VA tech. If the gunman had spent more time, effort and money investing in his slaughter, he would have been smart (smart in this case meaning crazy) to acquire several 50 round clips to load into an SKS or AK-47. Had he done this, which could have been done under the current laws with 100% legality, he would have made the body count soar into astounding numbers. 32 people woulda been a slow start with a weapon and round like that.

Assault weapons SHOULD be banned. The people that try to say otherwise, and that own these weapons, in reality only like them as a toy, and they don't want their toy taken away. No matter what the risk.

If I went nutty I could go to the mall on a Saturday afternoon and kill 30 people with my 45 cal handgun. If I went all nutty and grabbed my dads AK-47, I could go to that same mall, on the same day, at the same time and kill 200 people no ****ing problem. Frankly, I'm shocked that a tragedy of this magnitude hasn't occurred yet.

 

[hugo]

What I said about the original purpose of citizen armament, and the formation of militia, being an outdated ideal was true. We cannot, as citizens, arm ourselves to a point whereas we can pose a substantial defense against our government.

Someone needs to tell the insurgents in Iraq this.

 

[Jhony5]

Someone needs to tell the insurgents in Iraq this.

Here we go with the paranoid ideas that are responsible for flooding our streets with countless thousands of military grade weapons. Weapons that will never be needed to crush our oppressive government. Its thinking like this that has blurred the line between whats proper for self-defense, and whats needed for waging war against our own government.

Ironically its thinking like this that has drawn a hard line with two sides. One side for the full legalization of any and all firearms. One side for an all out abolishment of firearms altogether. No happy medium. Because there is no middle ground, it is inevitable that what will prevail is the further weakening of our society, as we continue this trend toward the left.

If both sides fight a reasonable approach toward gun legislation, we will inevitably have an unreasonable approach toward gun legislation. By fighting the banishment of unnecessary assault rifles and the like, the end result will be no guns at all. Just like Australia.

If you push too hard for too much, you will end up with nothing. Its like the fable of the dog that saw his reflection in the water below, and dropped his bone, hoping to grab the bigger one.

So go ahead. Join the NRA. Join the fight to keep assault riffles legal so we can defend ourselves from the government. The end is near, or at least thats what people like you have been saying for over 200 years. Any day now we will need these weapons to fight our oppressive government. Any day now, they've said, for over 200 years.



.........and BTW, most, and I mean MOST of the casualties inflicted upon the occupying forces in Iraq, are by way of improvised explosives. Not assault riffles.

 

[hugo]

Yes, amazing how Iraqi insurgents are having so much succes mainly with guns and improvised explosives. I am sure Americans, under the stress of a tyrannical government, could do the same. Jhony seems to think we have no need for a constitution. Our society is so advanced that we no longer need a constitution. Actually, we have been losing rights for nearly a hundred years thanks to unconstitutional laws. We had to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol... why are federal drug laws constitutional? The simple answer is they are not under any rational interpretation of our constitution. Due to the destruction of our constitution no longer is a man free to choose what he does with his own body. Due to the destruction of the constitution..no longer do whites and asians have equal protection under the law. Due to the destruction of the constitution...your home can be taken on a whim. Government tyranny is already here. Let us keep our weapons.

 

[Jhony5]

Jhony seems to think we have no need for a constitution.

You made quite a jump there. I said we have no need for assault rifles. Should we be allowed to carry hand grenades and rocket launchers too? I mean, we could really use them for the impending revolution.

Actually, we have been losing rights for nearly a hundred years thanks to unconstitutional laws. We had to pass an amendment to prohibit alcohol... why are federal drug laws constitutional?

All true. None of this has any bearing on the subject of assault riffles. Like I said above, is the ban on private ownership of rocket launchers and grenades unconstitutional in your purview? There has to be a limit to what power the average joe can wield.

I fully agree with you on several of these issues regarding the molestation of our inherent rights. Flat out, they didn't have assault riffles and surface to air missiles when the Constitution was drafted. When they insisted upon our right to bear arms, I don't think they would have thought it wise for schizophrenics to own AK-47's.

 

[hugo]

I suspect our founders would have locked the nutcases up and allowed the rest of us to have our assault rifles. There is a point where a significant state interest exists to allow infringement on individual rights guaranteed in the constitution. I believe laws prohibiting child porn are constitutional despite their infringement on freedom of the press. I can support banning grenades, rocket launchers and WMD's in the hands of individuals.There have been very few incidences involving assault rifles, banning lightening strikes would save more lives.

 

[RegisteredAndEducated]

jhony

Sounds like we're finding some middle ground. Given the entrenched gun culture in the US, and the massive number of weapons, probably the best that can be hoped for is a minimisation of damage by tighter regulations on the types of weapons available.

A ban on assault rifles, automatic weapons etc would be a good start, and might help stop some of mass killings that society wants stopped.

I don't remember hearing anything about assault weapons used in the mass killings. If I recall, most people just use regular weapons with some sort of skill or control. I agree that assault weapons should probably not be allowed in the hands of the general public, but I also dont see any facts that prove that they are used in the mass murder of American lives.

 

[snafu]

If I want a full auto weapon I see no reason that I can't. We have strong laws for this in place already. They don't need to be any stronger. And they need to get educated about what an assault rifle is. I can't put a bayonet om my mini 14 or it becomes an assault rifle. This shows you the level of intelligence here.

 

[hugo]

I modified my cell phone to turn it into an assault cell phone.