DescentBB

Testiculese wrote:A few years before I went to school, kids would bring their guns to school to take hunting after school.

That is how it was when I was in high school. During hunting season it was very common to see trucks with full gun racks in the student parking lot. Heck, On friday During our senior english class The teacher and a few of us students would be planning a hunt for after school.

Attacks like these make one wonder what has gone wrong. It's just too bad that in a few months misguided people will be calling for gun bans instead of adressing the real problem.

TW,
Our thoughts are with y'all. Glad to hear your roomates friend is doing better.

When things like this happen it goes beyond sad for me and I don't understand what the hell could make anyone do something so incredibley wrong. They can't possibly be in their right mind but I think it's going to take more than psychology to fix the problem.

What is the real problem Hattrick?

A crazy person is just a crazy person...a crazy person with easy access to guns becomes a killer.

I have no sympathy for any of this. If this country is going to continue to live in the 18th century when it comes to firearms, we have to be willing to accept these events as the status quo.

Isn't not really that bad though, if you think about it. So a dozen or so innocent people have to die once in awhile so you can have your guns...what's the big deal?

My condolences, I guess.

mistercool2 wrote:When things like this happen it goes beyond sad for me and I don't understand what the hell could make anyone do something so incredibley wrong. They can't possibly be in their right mind but I think it's going to take more than psychology to fix the problem.

I presume that you just said that to sound sympathetic, right?

TIGERassault wrote:

mistercool2 wrote:When things like this happen it goes beyond sad for me and I don't understand what the hell could make anyone do something so incredibley wrong. They can't possibly be in their right mind but I think it's going to take more than psychology to fix the problem.

I presume that you just said that to sound sympathetic, right?

"Presume" whatever you want.

Zuruck wrote:What is the real problem Hattrick?

A crazy person is just a crazy person...a crazy person with easy access to guns becomes a killer.

I have no sympathy for any of this. If this country is going to continue to live in the 18th century when it comes to firearms, we have to be willing to accept these events as the status quo.

Isn't not really that bad though, if you think about it. So a dozen or so innocent people have to die once in awhile so you can have your guns...what's the big deal?

More than a dozen I'd say;
http://www.daria.no/skole/?tekst=6099

Heck Northern Ireland even lags USA in gun deaths.

'gun free zones' and 'not getting involved' sure works well, doesn't it.

Yeah, that's the problem with widespread firearms... they don't make people any more violent, but they do make it far too easy to kill people.

At least a madman waving a knife is easier to stop, and will have a harder time attacking so many people. The extra effort also means he has to be pretty determined...

I have no idea how you'd get the guns out of the hands of violent offenders though. Even if you put a blanket ban on e.g. handguns, some people would ignore the ban, and most likely the people who you wanted it to affect...

So I guess the horse has bolted, so to speak.

Having grown up and lived in Texas all my life, I can tell you that it isn't about a 'love' of guns. The percentage of people that own guns in this state is mind-boggling. They do so because that's how they've been raised and taught to protect themselves. We are a state of hunters and fighters, fiercely independent to a fault.

Even in the most well-patrolled and well-to-do neighborhoods, the man of the house has a gun stashed somewhere with a full clip or two (and maybe even a round in the chamber) for the express purpose of protecting his family. We do not trust that police can arrive in time to prevent catastrophe if someone breaks into our home, and it is up to us to be the first and most deadly line of defense. And Texas law supports this mode and method of living.

It may sound like a joke or a brag, but any gunman-gone-insane in the state of Texas that starts shooting innocent people is going to very quickly have someone shooting back at them. While the logic might be twisted by stating such, or pacifists might pull their hair in frustration at the thought, I consider that a good thing.

Any state or federal legislature telling us that we couldn't protect ourselves in this manner would be met with a level of outrage that cannot be described. Many Texas would aggressively lobby for secession. Having said all that, I see nothing wrong with classes and/or gun registration as requirements for the privilege. Make it happen. Make sure that the level of responsibility associated with the privilege is enforced. Go for it. Just don't expect Texans to give up their guns.

Ever.

Sirius wrote:I have no idea how you'd get the guns out of the hands of violent offenders though.

you can't. no matter what you do you won't be able to.

The more you pen up the sheep, the more dangerous it is for them when a wolf sneaks in...

Sllik wrote:Having grown up and lived in Texas all my life, I can tell you that it isn't about a 'love' of guns. The percentage of people that own guns in this state is mind-boggling. They do so because that's how they've been raised and taught to protect themselves. We are a state of hunters and fighters, fiercely independent to a fault.

Even in the most well-patrolled and well-to-do neighborhoods, the man of the house has a gun stashed somewhere with a full clip or two (and maybe even a round in the chamber) for the express purpose of protecting his family. We do not trust that police can arrive in time to prevent catastrophe if someone breaks into our home, and it is up to us to be the first and most deadly line of defense. And Texas law supports this mode and method of living.

It may sound like a joke or a brag, but any gunman-gone-insane in the state of Texas that starts shooting innocent people is going to very quickly have someone shooting back at them. While the logic might be twisted by stating such, or pacifists might pull their hair in frustration at the thought, I consider that a good thing.

Any state or federal legislature telling us that we couldn't protect ourselves in this manner would be met with a level of outrage that cannot be described. Many Texas would aggressively lobby for secession. Having said all that, I see nothing wrong with classes and/or gun registration as requirements for the privilege. Make it happen. Make sure that the level of responsibility associated with the privilege is enforced. Go for it. Just don't expect Texans to give up their guns.

Ever.

X2, only I live in Arizona, one of the 2 states where it's still legal to wear a side arm in public

Im not going to get into a political discussion here since id rather do that in a more appropriate thread, but this event has me re-evaluating of whether or not I should attend a \"gun free\" school. It was ruled not long ago in a court that you, yourself, are the only one responsible for own safety. I want the ability to defend myself from mentally-ill psychopaths on a rampage. The constitution is the constitution and no entity or organization at any level except your grandma's house ought to override it. If it says right to bear arms, goddamnit you got the right to bear arms and defend yourself from a psychopathic medication taking goddamn army reject. ★■◆● you if you dont like it, you can move to Europe if you want, no one's stopping you from doing that.



I find it funny that the day after is worse than the day it happened, I felt like ★■◆● all day today. Yesterday I was fine.

The right to bear arms!

Zuruck wrote:What is the real problem Hattrick?

A crazy person is just a crazy person...a crazy person with easy access to guns becomes a killer.

I have no sympathy for any of this. If this country is going to continue to live in the 18th century when it comes to firearms, we have to be willing to accept these events as the status quo.

Isn't not really that bad though, if you think about it. So a dozen or so innocent people have to die once in awhile so you can have your guns...what's the big deal?

Typical knee jerk reactionary BS you always post about gun ownership.
If these people didn't have guns they would find another way to bring their plans to fruition. Then what Z? Do we ban that to?
How about this? If you decide to ban guns, Do you think the criminals would turn their guns in? What would happen to all the law abiding citizens when these criminals decided to go on a rampage?
The same exact thing.
If the security guards at the college would have been allowed to carry firearms, or if the professors with concealed carry permits would have been allowed to carry their weapons on Campus, this tragedy could have been partly adverted.

If you think I haven't been touched by gun violence, you are wrong. My step brother was shot 20 years ago. He survived, but it was a huge emotional troubling time. 2 years of hospitalization, 3 more years of rehab. Di d my step brother, parents or the rest of my family blame the firearms? No, we used a little bit of intelegence and realized it was the fault of someone who was sick and needed help. Perhaps a little bit of interaction from the guys, family and friends would have brought forth the fact that he was having emotional problems and needed help to sort through them? Hell, I don't know I am not a liscenced psycologist nor do I wish to be.
I do know that blaming firearms and calling for their ban is a knee jerk, feel good reaction for people who lack the crirical thinking skills to really get to what went wrong in these cases.

Call me when a firearm jumps up and goes on a rampage on it's own without help from a sick individual. Until then I will be enjoying my consitutional right to partake in my favorite pastime.

A partial quote from a doctor concerning sensible gun laws. The rest can be found here:
http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/Ackermann.htm

\"There is a huge wealth of reliable, peer reviewed, and supported primary research and review literature by well reputed members of the medical, criminological, legal, and sociological professions that clearly shows the complete failure of Draconian gun control laws such as Canada's, both historically and geographically as instruments of public safety or as means of reducing violent crime.

The recent Australian and British experiences with gun control shows that prohibiting or excessively controlling the lawful and harmless recreational and defensive uses of firearms by the ordinary citizen not only does nothing to reduce violent crime or suicide, but it in fact significantly increases the death toll due to criminal violence. These laws actually kill people. For example, in London, England, following the Dunblane gun ban firearms murders have risen by 90%. In Australia following the confiscation and destruction of some 665,000 legally owned firearms the murder rate went up over the entire country, with the worst increase seen in Victoria - a rise of 300 percent!

In every one of the USA's concealed carry states, the rates of all violence, and most especially firearms violence, dropped significantly following the institution of 'shall issue' laws that permit ordinary law-abiding citizens to become trained and then engage in defensive concealed carry of firearms. It may sound radical, but those are the facts, readily verified by anyone who chooses to do a bit of literature review.

The reasons for these phenomena are complex, but part of it is that only the law-abiding will obey firearms laws, now matter how strict. In fact the more severe the law, the more law-abiding those who obey it. The Responsible Firearms Community are not the ones committing violent crimes in the first place, and so wasting vast sums of money interfering with their harmless pastimes simply squanders scarce resources that could be better used to fight real criminals.

As mentioned above, in 1994 the US Department of Justice released a
report on urban delinquency that looked into the issue of gun ownership by inner city youth. It turns out that when these youth are given proper firearms safety and handling training and are encouraged to practice with lawfully acquired firearms under the guidance of adult coaches, their involvement with violent crime is zero. Not just a lower percentage, but ZERO. It would appear that exposure to appropriate firearms training, as opposed to the media's and the gangs' violent versions of 'gun culture' when coupled with the attention of adult mentors is highly protective against involvement in violence.

There you have it: Draconian gun laws increase both violence and firearm death tolls while appropriate laws that respect the right of ordinary citizens to learn about and use firearms safely reduces both violence and firearm death.

Despite this, the Canadian Safety Council (CFC), via its mouthpiece Mr. Emile Therien, clings obsessively to the idea that if we can just punish the law abiding enough we can reduce the criminal's use of firearms. In addition most medical organizations across the country have jumped on the 'Costs-Only Analysis' band wagon without even the pretense of taking an evidence based approach.

They use misleading and partial statistics and inflammatory emotional rhetoric to make their case, all the while ignoring the facts. For example as mentioned 100 times as many American people of all ages and 500 times as many children below 4 years of age die of drowning in backyard pools as die by gunfire. The Canadian figures are similar.

Should we then launch a campaign to register and then ban backyard pools and water itself? Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim?
\"

First thing first: discussing or imposing a ban on weapons is NOT going to increase or reduce the amount of attention put through to prevent the people going crazy in the first place. Got it?
If there was some magic cure-all to preventing people from taking extreme measures, then we'd have this problem sorted already. But there's not.

Hattrick wrote:How about this? If you decide to ban guns, Do you think the criminals would turn their guns in? What would happen to all the law abiding citizens when these criminals decided to go on a rampage?

There are pretty much two types of criminals: The 'spur of the moment' type that are supposed to be good people, but then just cracked; and the type that make a living out of crime. The former would turn their guns in, because it's not worth the risk of being arrested; and the latter wouldn't go on rampages, because they don't like killing people any more than we do.

Sirius wrote:Yeah, that's the problem with widespread firearms... they don't make people any more violent, but they do make it far too easy to kill people.
At least a madman waving a knife is easier to stop, and will have a harder time attacking so many people. The extra effort also means he has to be pretty determined...

x2

Canuck wrote:More than a dozen I'd say;
http://www.daria.no/skole/?tekst=6099

Heck Northern Ireland even lags USA in gun deaths.

You mean death deaths. Which, I think it's worth pointing out, has significantly reduced ever since the IRA self-imposed gun control.
Sorta says something, doesn't it.

Hi Grizz...

This doctor may be legitimate but is also crazy, scary, biased, and a member of the NRA. What else could he say?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... asp?ID=133

I think it's shameless for him to use his DR. credentials to promote his personal agenda while people like me are still hurting over the loss of those kids.

Bee

Agreed.

\"The 235th E&C Debate on Gun Control\" is probably a good topic, but not in this thread, not right now.

TIGERassault wrote:criminals decided to go on a rampage?
There are pretty much two types of criminals: The 'spur of the moment' type that are supposed to be good people, but then just cracked; and the type that make a living out of crime. The former would turn their guns in, because it's not worth the risk of being arrested; and the latter wouldn't go on rampages, because they don't like killing people any more than we do.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that doesn't make much sense.
The latter group you speak of( those who make a living out of crime) would include organized crime right? Do you not think that they do in fact kill people? I would say they do and have gone on rampages in the past and will continue to do so if it will further their aspirations.



Bee, If you do not think that gun owners are mourning the loss of these young people that were taken in this tragic event you are wrong. We are people too. It's just we believe that the problem is these sick people are washed through the system and left to dwell on their problems without any care from those who should be there to help them get through these problem. They eventually feel there is only one solution and they want to make other people pay for ignoring their problems which they feel should have been noticed by the people they often lash out against. Unfortunately there are other people that get hurt that had nothing to do with anything.

I do know this. Back when I was in school, we carried our weapons in our vehicles most of the year. We did not have these school shootings or mall masacres happening at an alarming rate but now we do.
to me it seems that there is an underlying socuial problem that needs to be adressed here. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is not going to solve this problem, it is only going to force them to use other weapons to accomplish their plans.
Have you ever looked and seen how easy it is to build a bomb capable of mass destruction? you can legaly buy the items to produce such a device and with a few easily attainable plans and some determination. you could easily take out more people than all of the school shootings and mall masacres in one fell swoop.
Gun prohibition is not the answer, stricter gun laws are not the answer. Adressing the obvious social disorder that is causing these tragedies is by far more logical than trying to remove the tools they use.

oops double post

Bet51987 wrote:Hi Grizz...

This doctor may be legitimate but is also crazy, scary, biased, and a member of the NRA. What else could he say?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/informat ... asp?ID=133

I think it's shameless for him to use his DR. credentials to promote his personal agenda while people like me are still hurting over the loss of those kids.

Bee

I don't take the school shootings lightly Bett. My 17 year old son is away at college in Colorado just a few miles from where the Columbine and Arvada shootings took place.
The Doctor wrote that 6 years or so ago,as a response to misinformation, and didn't intend to hurt you, nor did I.

grizz wrote:... and didn't intend to hurt you, nor did I.

I know you didn't. I was just responding to the article. I know you care.

Hattrick, I also know you care too. We all do, but there are die-hard NRA boys that drop the newspaper all too quickly and rally troops for a possible defense against any gun law uprising. This, to them, is paramount while grief is short lived.

I have no answers, nor do I think guns should be banned. If you remember, I asked that teachers be allowed to carry guns and I still want that, but I have no respect for the NRA or any NRA doctor. None whatsoever.

I'm sad, not mad.

Bee

"Guns don't kill people ..."

We all know gun control isn't going to solve the problem of people killing people. It's just one band aid that doesn't fix the cause.

grizz wrote:
"Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim?"

And herein lies the answer. But it isn't about swimming pools or swimming.

So tell me this bett: Would a criminal start obeying the law if new ones were passed?

Tighter gun laws eventually only make criminals out of more and more people who never committed any crime.

Bet51987 wrote:
Instead of locked doors, we just hire more Psychologists.

Bee

Psycologists? To tell them that it is not their fault? To say that they can't help how they feel/what they do? Psycologists couldn't help these people.

Hattrick wrote:Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that doesn't make much sense.
The latter group you speak of( those who make a living out of crime) would include organized crime right? Do you not think that they do in fact kill people? I would say they do and have gone on rampages in the past and will continue to do so if it will further their aspirations.

...what kinda 'organised crime' are you talking about here? If it's Italian-mafia kinda thing, I'm fairly sure they're not stupid enough to step out in the middle of a crowded area and shoot their target straight off, which is the only time bystanders are going to use a gun against them.

Hattrick wrote:Have you ever looked and seen how easy it is to build a bomb capable of mass destruction? you can legaly buy the items to produce such a device and with a few easily attainable plans and some determination. you could easily take out more people than all of the school shootings and mall masacres in one fell swoop.

Yes, but having to try to put together the bomb normally takes too much time and effort for the kind of psychos we're talking about. Hence why they use slow, one-at-a-time guns instead of doing what you said and blowing everyone up in one go with a bomb.

Krom wrote:Tighter gun laws eventually only make criminals out of more and more people who never committed any crime.

Hmm, yes, mabe you're right. Heck, we should abolish all laws! That way, we'll have absolutely no criminals at all!

Heh, You obviously havent read up on the mafia have you?

Do a search for the valentines day massacre. That is only one of the historic public massacres the mafia have been behind. Granted it was other mafia people they were aftyer, but they do not care if there are innocent people in the way, they will kill who they are after no matter who else has to die.

Also, Do you really think the people behind these school/mall massacres just woke up one day grabbed a gun and decided to shoot a bunch of people?

90% of these massacres were well planned out over weeks. That is plenty of time to gather the needed materials to construct a bomb of the size I posted about.

Epic hijack...

mistercool2 wrote:

grizz wrote:
"Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim?"

And herein lies the answer. But it isn't about swimming pools or swimming.

It really isn't an answer. Swimming pool drownings are accidental. Gun rampages are not.

Teaching people how to responsibly use firearms will reduce the number of people accidentally harming or killing themselves and others with firearms, but it won't stop those who shoot others intentionally.

Everything must be so simple to explain in Jack Thompson's world.

Sirius wrote:

mistercool2 wrote:

grizz wrote:
"Or would a better approach not be to teach homeowners how to safely install pools and children how to safely swim?"

And herein lies the answer. But it isn't about swimming pools or swimming.

It really isn't an answer. Swimming pool drownings are accidental. Gun rampages are not.

Teaching people how to responsibly use firearms will reduce the number of people accidentally harming or killing themselves and others with firearms, but it won't stop those who shoot others intentionally.

You can take a single sentence out of almost any quote, and make it completely misrepresent what was originally said.

I can kill you with a knife faster than you could shoot me with a gun, Tiger.

I could take out more people in a crowd with a knife than with a handgun. Real killers don't reload.

Testiculese wrote:I can kill you with a knife faster than you could shoot me with a gun, Tiger.

I could take out more people in a crowd with a knife than with a handgun. Real killers don't reload.

WHAT

when a crowd realises you are killing them (bodies are dropping en mass), they will most likely run. How are you going to kill people with a weapon that requires PROXIMITY to people who are now running away from you in all directions?!
Whereas with a gun you can still attack people who are retreating in any direction.

Testiculese wrote:I can kill you with a knife faster than you could shoot me with a gun, Tiger.

I could take out more people in a crowd with a knife than with a handgun. Real killers don't reload.

If two-three people decide to fight back, you're done for.

Fight back? lol, This is America. Wait, that reminds me. A knife wouldn't do very well in this country, everyone has a 6-7 inch layer of blubber for protection. You'd need a Croc Dundee knife to do anything, and you can't hide that.

Why is the solution to the gun problem always to add more guns? And what happens if that professor that you just armed to protect the students goes crazy, and kills his student. Then do we have an armed guard in each and every classroom in America to protect the students from the maybe crazy teacher protecting them?

But...it sucks to admit that getting the 200 million guns out of this country just won't happen. That is why these situations have to become less of a big deal...it's just simply going to happen. With the gun-loving nature of a large portion of this country, and being absolutely steadfast in refusing to do anything about it, it is just simply going to happen.

Wierd, Z, that all this crap only started recently, right about when government started accelerating oppression and allowing drug companies to become drug pushers. Beforehand, it was relatively rare.

A 200-million to 50 ratio is a piss poor argument on your end.

Hah, you dont have to tell me Testi. I agree with you on that. Pills upon pills upon pills...nobody knows what's going to happen when you mix all the medications that you \"need\" to live.

So let's think, dude goes off the meds, goes nuts, but without guns what can he do...get a knife. Yes he can kill people with that...but can he walk into a lecture hall and kill? Not to the same degree no...there is no solution to this problem. As this kid at NIU pointed out, now even the ones that don't seem likely to do this can and will do it.

What would your solution(s) be Testi? Forcibly arm teachers to defend? At what cost? Just teachers? Or all faculty? What would keep a teacher from losing it?

Also, I don't understand the ratio. 50 what?

(I'm honestly curious...no need to be a dick to me)