guns

[Peter Parka]

Blair is so far up Bush's arse I doubt very much he would disagree with him even if he didn't like what he proposed!

 

[Tim]

Ok, I have to speak up on this debate. First I have to say that at the moment I do not own any guns. I have owned semi-auto 9mm pistols, rifles, shotguns, revolvers, etc. I loved my guns and I have shot many thousands of rounds. I was also a very responsible gun owner, living on many acres of land where I can go out and shoot just about any time I wanted without the threat of hurting anyone. I also kept my guns locked up which didn't really lend them to a good form of self defense... unless the intruder called ahead.

Now with that being said, I don't think the second amendment guarantees Americans the right to own guns. It talks about the right of militias to bear arms for protection against an oppressive government. That would be the National guard.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even if it was giving American's the "right" to bear arms, it would still be a "right" with limitations. "Arms" are not only guns, they are grenades, hand held rocket launchers, flame throwers, etc. So where is the break point? Who would be allowed to bear them? As a responsible society, we have a moral obligation to maintain law and order. We need to place restrictions on what we can have and how we can use them when it comes to these "arms". We already have laws in place. You can't shoot your gun into the air in a crowded city, you can't carry your weapon into a bank, you can't take it to school with you, you can't do a lot of different things with your guns. But we are SOOO afraid to enact new gun laws that we have not been responsible enough as a nation. We are letting things get out of control by not passing new laws that make sense when it comes to gun safety. Why we don't have federal laws in place to check peoples backgrounds before handing them a deadly weapon. I mean, why would any law abiding citizen care if they have to wait a week for the first thorough back ground check?
We don't let anyone walk in off the street and drive a car? There are tests, waiting periods (permit license) and many laws to follow. If we do this for driving, why can't we do something similar for guns? When I am ready to buy my next gun, I would be more than willing to follow a few rules to get them. I also haven't even touched on the laws and their enforcement of them.

I guess what I am saying.... we as a nation need to get our act together before enough people finally get fed up to the point where there is enough public outcry to take everyones guns. If we want to own a deadly weapon, then lets be responsible about it so we can keep that right.

 

[Tim]

Because with a knife people aren't going to start running away unless you wander up into a crowded cafeteria and jab someone in the throat.

You're missing the entire point of how long it took the police in VA to get the call and respond to the shootings in the first place. If HE had a knife, then it might have been the next day before anyone noticed.

James you really have to be kidding with this whole line of reasoning. There is no way in hell that this kid could have killed even a fraction if he only had a knife. Your point about it being silent and that he could continue killing on a crowded campus because he would be silent? What about the trail of bodies he would leave behind? What would keep the first student from just picking up his chair and beating him over his fucking head? The only possible way would for him to encounter willing victims one on one, kill them quickly (with a knife isn't probable) and hide the body before moving on to the next one.... Not very likely at all. Maybe two or three kids, not 30.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Only problem I have with your post Tim is back in the 1700s there were no such things as rocket launchers, flame throwers or grenades. Hell, the gattling cannon wasn't invented until the Civil War era.

If you bring a 21st century explanation into it then yes it could be interpreted as such. But that isn't what the fore fathers intended in the constitution. However, your point is still valid - where does it end? Simply because these weapons weren't invented yet doesn't mean they should be illegal by the letter of the law.

Also I've read a lot about the 2nd amendment, it can be interpreted to not mean a civilian has the right to bear arms, but a regulated militia. But you have to remember the reason that was written was English soldiers would storm into 'patriotic' American citizens' homes in the new country while it was under British control for whatever reason. The forefathers thought this was outrageous and sought to never let the new government allow these outrageous practices.

Personally, I think it should be interpreted taking both ways into account.

 

[memento_mori]

wned: :asshole:


:jk

 

[TheOriginalJames]

James you really have to be kidding with this whole line of reasoning. There is no way in hell that this kid could have killed even a fraction if he only had a knife. Your point about it being silent and that he could continue killing on a crowded campus because he would be silent? What about the trail of bodies he would leave behind? What would keep the first student from just picking up his chair and beating him over his fucking head? The only possible way would for him to encounter willing victims one on one, kill them quickly (with a knife isn't probable) and hide the body before moving on to the next one.... Not very likely at all. Maybe two or three kids, not 30.

He only killed two or three at a time. From what I understand, of course it's been a while since I read anything, he killed 4-5 people on the first rampage and then went to his 'safe house' for a couple of hours. Then went on killing other people at another building. I never said it would be as effective in a larger crowd, I just said it would be just as dangerous.

My point was that knives are just as dangerous in the wrong hands as guns are. Should we ban knives?

 

[Peter Parka]

He only killed two or three at a time. From what I understand, of course it's been a while since I read anything, he killed 4-5 people on the first rampage and then went to his 'safe house' for a couple of hours. Then went on killing other people at another building. I never said it would be as effective in a larger crowd, I just said it would be just as dangerous.

My point was that knives are just as dangerous in the wrong hands as guns are. Should we ban knives?

If this is the case it dosen't say too much for your Police response unit. If that happened here, the college would be evacuated and trained armed Police would be on the scene in minutes:eek .

Knives are more difficult to ban because they have a practical use in peoples kitchens and places of work ect. Over here you are allowed them if you can prove you have a legitamate use for them but otherwise you will be up shit creek with the law, maschettes and other non practicul weapons are especially frowned on.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

You're taking it out of perspective anyway. I stated my point above, had he used knives his tactics might have been completely different. Nobody knows if he was killing randomly or if he killed the victims he had planned out over the course of attending the school. For all we know he just snapped and started killing random people.


edit: what kept a student from picking up a chair and beating him over the head when he had his guns? Fear. Sure you can say what you'd do if someone busted into your classroom with a gun, but we all know it's a line of BS while you're watching some guy take out your friends.

You're going to charge a guy with a knife? Well, yes... maybe. They're a little less intimidating and probably harder to acquire (that IS a problem, i agree with peter on that part).

 

[TheOriginalJames]

If this is the case it dosen't say too much for your Police response unit. If that happened here, the college would be evacuated and trained armed Police would be on the scene in minutes:eek .

This wasn't like columbine. His first victims were secluded (I believe in the dorms?) and nobody knew they'd been shot until he went on his second rampage.

Police aren't going to respond before a call is made.

 

[Tim]

He only killed two or three at a time. From what I understand, of course it's been a while since I read anything, he killed 4-5 people on the first rampage and then went to his 'safe house' for a couple of hours. Then went on killing other people at another building. I never said it would be as effective in a larger crowd, I just said it would be just as dangerous.

My point was that knives are just as dangerous in the wrong hands as guns are. Should we ban knives?

In the dorm at 7:15am he killed 2 people, then while the police responded to that he went to the classes, chained the doors, entered classrooms and killed 30 people, wounding 15 more between 9:15am and 9:47am...

 

[Tim]

My point was that knives are just as dangerous in the wrong hands as guns are. Should we ban knives?

Knives are no where as dangerous as guns... no even close.

And I don't think we should ban guns or knives.... please read my first post in this thread. I just want us to be more responsible. Our gun laws suck and we can be a lot more careful while still protecting the legal gun owners

 

[Peter Parka]

The point I've been trying to make James is that people who do this arn't stealth killers, if they were likely to sneak up carefully and skillfully on people with a knife, then if they had a gun, surely they would be more likely to do the same, use a silencer or do sniper attacks?

 

[TheOriginalJames]

After he left the dorms and went off to mail a package to NBC postmarked at 9:01.

As I said his tactics using a knife may have been completely different, but it's still just as dangerous to give a knife to a mentally ill person.

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Whats your basis for that Tim? Knives aren't anywhere near as dangerous? Because you can only kill one person at a time at close range while you can spray bullets all over the place? Of course, but that doesn't make a knife any less deadly when used to kill.

Can I get some acknowledgement? Suddenly I'm being ganged up on by saying that knives are bad for ones' life.

 

[Peter Parka]

Knives are bad for ones life but I fail to see how they are more dangerous than guns, say you were in a fight with a guy, one of you had a knife, one a gun, which weapon would you rather have?

 

[Tim]

Whats your basis for that Tim? Knives aren't anywhere near as dangerous? Because you can only kill one person at a time at close range while you can spray bullets all over the place? Of course, but that doesn't make a knife any less deadly when used to kill.

Can I get some acknowledgement? Suddenly I'm being ganged up on by saying that knives are bad for ones' life.

I don't know how you can even compare the two.
Would you rather face a killer with a loaded gun or a knife?

With a gun you can kill at a distance. With a knife you have to be up close and personal.

 

[Tim]

Did you hear of all the kids that were shot in the back while trying to run from this kid? That wasn't going to happen with a knife

 

[TheOriginalJames]

Knives are bad for ones life but I fail to see how they are more dangerous than guns, say you were in a fight with a guy, one of you had a knife, one a gun, which weapon would you rather have?

I never said they were more dangerous...

I don't know how you can even compare the two.
Would you rather face a killer with a loaded gun or a knife?

With a gun you can kill at a distance. With a knife you have to be up close and personal.

If I was going to die at the hands of a mentally ill psychopath, I'd rather just be shot. If one shot was fatal, it's quicker and less painful. I'd be just as terrified no matter what I was being threatened with.

Did you hear of all the kids that were shot in the back while trying to run from this kid? That wasn't going to happen with a knife

Where were they running to? He shot them all in classrooms at Norris and West Ambler Johnston Hall.

 

[Peter Parka]

I made that point earlier on Tim but people chose to not answer it and instead run round in circles back to points I'd already answered.:humm:

 

[TheOriginalJames]

I made that point earlier on Tim but people chose to not answer it and instead run round in circles back to points I'd already answered.:humm:

Well I figure since you ran around my questions, I should do the same to you. Now you know how frustrating it is to not get a straight answer.

Hell, it's ironic because I made the same point to you as Tim did to me... but you find it interesting that he'd point it out without ever acknowledging mine.