Threxx Posted December 18, 2012 Share #26 Posted December 18, 2012 we may all be humans but there is a different environment in Europe, a different mentality there. World War I and WWII was fought in their cities and towns. They survived some of the world's most brutal regimes. They have a different attitude towards violence and guns as a result. I dont think stricter gun control is going to prevent tragedies from happening. That kid could have gotten a firearm on the street illegally, he could have used a knife or made a bomb instead. What we need is to find a way to reach out to these kids, before they grow up into psycho killers. He may have been carrying some deep emotional pain and it stayed bottled up for years and years and when he finally blew the result is a huge tragedy. I pointed that out in the other thread, that our society in general has become more violent, and while that kind of treatment is necessary, it also raises the need to reduce the availability of the tools that are used to create violence. BTW, a knife is less deadly, and a bomb does require planning, and could have been discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgood6195 Posted December 18, 2012 Share #27 Posted December 18, 2012 we may all be humans but there is a different environment in Europe, a different mentality there. World War I and WWII was fought in their cities and towns. They survived some of the world's most brutal regimes. They have a different attitude towards violence and guns as a result. I dont think stricter gun control is going to prevent tragedies from happening. That kid could have gotten a firearm on the street illegally, he could have used a knife or made a bomb instead. What we need is to find a way to reach out to these kids, before they grow up into psycho killers. He may have been carrying some deep emotional pain and it stayed bottled up for years and years and when he finally blew the result is a huge tragedy. Exactly, prehaps they need to have stricter control on what meds are safe and what isn't. I believe that the Food and drug division are partly to blame for this absurd act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 18, 2012 Share #28 Posted December 18, 2012 Exactly, prehaps they need to have stricter control on what meds are safe and what isn't. I believe that the Food and drug division are partly to blame for this absurd act. What does the FDA have to do with it? Meds weren't the issue here, he had Asperger's syndrome, a disease... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilbluefoxie Posted December 18, 2012 Share #29 Posted December 18, 2012 I pointed that out in the other thread, that our society in general has become more violent, and while that kind of treatment is necessary, it also raises the need to reduce the availability of the tools that are used to create violence. BTW, a knife is less deadly, and a bomb does require planning, and could have been discovered. not if he just walked in there with it strapped to his chest like they do in the middle east and detionated it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 18, 2012 Share #30 Posted December 18, 2012 not if he just walked in there with it strapped to his chest like they do in the middle east and detionated it I meant when he was putting the bomb together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MHV9218 Posted December 19, 2012 Share #31 Posted December 19, 2012 Oh boy... MO all tighter gun control will do is prevent the law abiding citizens from being able to own and in some cases carry. If a criminal wants a gun they are going to get a hold of one regardless of the circumstances. Yes, the guns used in sandy hook were legal; they were not registered to Lanza but his mother. Just as how any other criminal gets a hold of a firearm...they steal them. Yes, it is unfortunate that 20 children lost their lives but in reality it could have happened anywhere as long as a deranged individual was willing to commit a crime. It was stated that when they want to relinquish our liberties certain "tragedies" will happen so that the government won't force these changes upon us but rather the people will beg them to do it. 9/11 resulted in the patriot act, now this may very well be the end of our right to bear arms. They are going down the constitution one by one and the people are falling for it blindly. I hate this argument that since there will always be criminals, we shouldn't have gun regulations. Well, there will always be speeders, but we still have speed limits. Just because there will always be people who break the laws doesn't mean we shouldn't have those laws, and a some regulations are what we need, since gun ownership is out of control in this country: we do not need 30 guns a person, nor do we need machine guns and semiautomatics, any of that. If your lifestyle requires you to own those weapons, you are a soldier. If not, you're paranoid. This is not going to result in the end of our right to bear arms oh please...the NRA owns Washington, I'd be surprised if we saw any legitimate legislation to come out of this. The right to bear arms is not going anywhere. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. If lanza had been treated for his condition, this wouldn't have happened. if he didn;t have acess to guns he would have found some other method to go off the deep end. The same day in china, a nut case murdered an older woman and then attacked a school, only this time with a kitchen knife; he sliced poor little kids fingers off. the clearly shows the presense of guns is not the actual issue. The presence of guns is not the actual issue? How far did you have to reach up your as$ to pull that one out? What, guns are just fluffy little toys and sadly there are some bad people in this world? Cut that out. They are designed to kill, and the fact that people use them for their intended purpose should surprise nobody. Without the massive numbers of guns out there, we wouldn't have our massive number of shootings -- the fewer guns on the streets, the fewer people who get shot. That's just how it works. Spare me this fantasy that anything near the number of homicides in this country would be possible with knives, too. Owning a gun represents a level of self-reliance that is incompatible with liberal doctrine. When you have a group of people that think some people actually make too much money, what did you expect? You are clueless. They love to point out how little gun violence there is in places that restrict guns, but what about other violent crimes? What about stabbings? How many stabbings happen on a daily basis in these countries? If you watch Top Gear, when they complain about criminals, they always mention them as "stabbing people" not shooting them. why, becuase since they can't get guns, they resort to knifes. Don't ruin Top Gear for me here. An anecdote is not a statistic, you ought to know that. Firstly, knives do not have anywhere near the lethal potential of guns, and I think we're all pretty aware of that. Secondly, so what? There are crimes in other countries, good point. Doesn't detract from the fact we need legislation HERE where shootings are out of control. Never let anyone trample on your rights, because the second you give them an inch, they will take a mile. In 1776, many fought, and many died to secure a future for the rest of America. Why piss all over that? How sanctimonious do you wanna go? And you're just wrong, too: being able to own and use an assault rifle -- at best, the founding fathers imagined ownership of a musket (with a 1-2 minute gap between shots), and it's become pretty clear through recent analyses that that clause in the constitution is referring almost specifically to the ability to use weapons for a militia. You never had a right to carry around a machine gun, and you shouldn't have that right either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 19, 2012 Share #32 Posted December 19, 2012 wow, you really are just gluping down the liberal kool-aid... A gun is a tool; a tool that is only dangerious when it's in the wrong hands. that, in and of itself, does not nessesitate throwing them all out. Oh, wait, you're the same dip who thinks every cop is a trigger happy jock. maybe if you spent some time in the real world... the vast majoirty of priavelty owned civilian guns in this country will never be fired at another human being without just cause. Are there accidents, yes, but there are also hundrids of people killed in the city every year in car accidents and no one's thrown a fit about that. But, no, it's the "cool thing to do" to hate guns and to blame them. it's not "correct" to blame the real culprits when guns are invovled. Any other time it's fine to blame the human. I mean, a friend of mine get's killed because of a guy driving the wrong way on a one way street while high on pot, and when I complain about the dangers of weed, I GOT THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I'VE MADE ABOUT GUNS RIGHT BACK AT ME! "Oh, the weed is safe, the weed didn't do it, it was the guy driving, it's just the person, that doesn't make pot bad". I guess this is what I get for being a self thinking person, who has his own oppinions and makes up his own mind on how he feels about a subjet. And to the OP, if you want to complain about other people's cultures and thier "alien" ideas, since you're name says you're an austrlian who's living in the UK, why do both insist on having the royals around? All they do is smile and spend your taxes; talk about welfare for the 1%. Don't take a swing at someone else's way of life and cultural background unless you're willing to defend your own... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted December 19, 2012 Share #33 Posted December 19, 2012 How sanctimonious do you wanna go? And you're just wrong, too: being able to own and use an assault rifle -- at best, the founding fathers imagined ownership of a musket (with a 1-2 minute gap between shots), and it's become pretty clear through recent analyses that that clause in the constitution is referring almost specifically to the ability to use weapons for a militia. You never had a right to carry around a machine gun, and you shouldn't have that right either. 2A was ratified such that the people had recourse against the government should it become a tyranny (they feared that it could turn into another England, and rightfully so.) Since you bought it up, it therefore follows that the amendment specifically gives the people the right to the same level of weaponry as the federal government, so there are true checks and balances in place. However, this right has already been severely limited, as it is fairly illegal to own a cruise missile, for example. But hey, you opened that can of worms, not me. ;-) Also, in many states, you DO have the right to own a machinegun. They're very expensive, thanks to the artificial closure of the registry, but it is possible to privately own a machinegun. I did a lot of research years ago in college on crimes committed with legally owned machineguns and only found two, IIRC. One was a police officer (with his duty rifle) and the other was a doctor who murdered his wife and the fella she was cheating on him with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mediccjh Posted December 19, 2012 Share #34 Posted December 19, 2012 Oh, where do I even start. Let's start in Jolly old England. After they banned guns, gun crimes went up 89% in the decade after. (SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html) But they banned guns, so there shouldn't be any gun crimes, right? Chicago, as well as the state of Illinois, banned handguns. Chicago is on pace to have more murders than NYC this year, and Chicago's population is less than HALF of NYC. But they banned guns, so there shouldn't be any gun crimes, right? Newark, Camden, Trenton, NJ. Violent cities with a LOT of gun crimes. I worked as a medic in Newark for 3 years, and I had at least a shooting a week. But Jersey has some of the most strict gun laws, so there shouldn't be any gun crimes, right? While the US has 35-50% of the guns in the world, they do NOT lead the world in gun violence per-capita. Not even the top 25. Honduras is number 1. We're 28. (SOURCE:http://m.guardiannews.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list) After Florida relaxed their gun laws in the '90s, crime went DOWN. There were no Wild-West shootouts that the Left said was going to happen. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth, are all illegal. Therefore, there shouldn't be a drug problem, right? 18th Amendment. 'Nuff said. I hold a License to Conceal Firearms in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I know the gun laws for PA, NJ, and NY, since that's where I am mostly. It's bullshit that I can't carry from PA to NYC for self-defence, even though I obviously passed a background check in NYC. All the gun laws can be passed, but CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW!!!! If someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, they will be able to get one. No amount of laws will stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 19, 2012 Share #35 Posted December 19, 2012 Totally agreed, especially that last part. All some people care about is the outright bans like carolin McCarthy, Bloomberg, Feinstein, etc. I wonder if any of them have armed security girds to keep them safe? Easy to tell us 'peasants' we can't have a gun to defend ourselves when they already have guards to protect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted December 19, 2012 Share #36 Posted December 19, 2012 Bloomberg definitely does. Feinstein once admitted to carrying a concealed pistol when she was out late visiting her husband in the hospital. McCarthy...probably. Ironically enough, the engineer on the Colin Ferguson train held/holds a NYS pistol license...yet was administratively prohibited from carrying it unless he was en route to a shooting range. Liberal elite love to push forward their anti-gun agenda, but it's only anti-gun as far as the peasants are concerned. Are you rich? Are you politically connected? Are you BOTH? Then step right up and carry a handgun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 19, 2012 Share #37 Posted December 19, 2012 Exactly ^. (Ran out of likes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted December 19, 2012 Share #38 Posted December 19, 2012 The situation in NY makes the real motives behind gun control to be very clear. Even gun control isn't really about the guns, it's about controlling you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 19, 2012 Share #39 Posted December 19, 2012 The situation in NY makes the real motives behind gun control to be very clear. Even gun control isn't really about the guns, it's about controlling you. As if 20 years of Guiliani/Bloomberg didn't teach us that already... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussieinuk Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share #40 Posted December 19, 2012 wow, you really are just gluping down the liberal kool-aid... A gun is a tool; a tool that is only dangerious when it's in the wrong hands. that, in and of itself, does not nessesitate throwing them all out. Oh, wait, you're the same dip who thinks every cop is a trigger happy jock. maybe if you spent some time in the real world... the vast majoirty of priavelty owned civilian guns in this country will never be fired at another human being without just cause. Are there accidents, yes, but there are also hundrids of people killed in the city every year in car accidents and no one's thrown a fit about that. But, no, it's the "cool thing to do" to hate guns and to blame them. it's not "correct" to blame the real culprits when guns are invovled. Any other time it's fine to blame the human. I mean, a friend of mine get's killed because of a guy driving the wrong way on a one way street while high on pot, and when I complain about the dangers of weed, I GOT THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT I'VE MADE ABOUT GUNS RIGHT BACK AT ME! "Oh, the weed is safe, the weed didn't do it, it was the guy driving, it's just the person, that doesn't make pot bad". I guess this is what I get for being a self thinking person, who has his own oppinions and makes up his own mind on how he feels about a subjet. And to the OP, if you want to complain about other people's cultures and thier "alien" ideas, since you're name says you're an austrlian who's living in the UK, why do both insist on having the royals around? All they do is smile and spend your taxes; talk about welfare for the 1%. Don't take a swing at someone else's way of life and cultural background unless you're willing to defend your own... Am I taking a swing at your background? Obviously you did not read my post correctly. I am simply making an observation, or is that not allowed? You have every right to disagree with me, but to slag off at the Royal Family is uncalled for. That statement you made about them is ignorant and without foundation. I did not badmouth your President. And as for the Second Amendment, you probably wouldn't have one if it wasn't for the English Bill of Rights of 1689 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 19, 2012 Share #41 Posted December 19, 2012 And to the OP, if you want to complain about other people's cultures and thier "alien" ideas, since you're name says you're an austrlian who's living in the UK, why do both insist on having the royals around? All they do is smile and spend your taxes; talk about welfare for the 1%. Don't take a swing at someone else's way of life and cultural background unless you're willing to defend your own... He replied himself, and he's right about the English Bill of Rights... Reading the posts accurately is fundamental... And yes, criminals don't follow the law... the point is to REDUCE ACCESS TO THE TOOLS THAT THEY USE TO COMMIT THE CRIMES!!!!!!!!! The 2nd Amendment mentions nothing of a type of weapon that you should allowed to be carry... we're not in need of a citizen militia, why the f**k do you need to have a machine gun in your house? Criminals will always be able to get guns... crime will always be a part of a free society... that's not the issue here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted December 19, 2012 Share #42 Posted December 19, 2012 So you readily advocate a society where only criminals and the police are armed? Which one of those groups do you belong to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 19, 2012 Share #43 Posted December 19, 2012 Some just wont get it. They won't last long in a de-gunned area in say Alaska. Try waiting an hour for the cops to show up if there's a criminal wanting to break in. Am I taking a swing at your background? Obviously you did not read my post correctly. I am simply making an observation, or is that not allowed? You have every right to disagree with me, but to slag off at the Royal Family is uncalled for. That statement you made about them is ignorant and without foundation. I did not badmouth your President. And as for the Second Amendment, you probably wouldn't have one if it wasn't for the English Bill of Rights of 1689 his reply was to mhv9218's post just before, not to you personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 19, 2012 Share #44 Posted December 19, 2012 Am I taking a swing at your background? Obviously you did not read my post correctly. I am simply making an observation, or is that not allowed? You have every right to disagree with me, but to slag off at the Royal Family is uncalled for. That statement you made about them is ignorant and without foundation. I did not badmouth your President. And as for the Second Amendment, you probably wouldn't have one if it wasn't for the English Bill of Rights of 1689 Don't like outsiders complain about things that are important to you... And, for the record, considering your beloved royals took from my ansectors what was rightly thiers, I'll "slag off" about who ever I damn well when ever I damn well please thank you very much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussieinuk Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share #45 Posted December 19, 2012 Don't like outsiders complain about things that are important to you... And, for the record, considering your beloved royals took from my ansectors what was rightly thiers, I'll "slag off" about who ever I damn well when ever I damn well please thank you very much... Nice to see you are a forgiving person.it is now 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 19, 2012 Share #46 Posted December 19, 2012 OK, OK, first I'm going to apoligize, I was pushing your button intentioanly, trying to get you into a certain frame of mind. take everything I said and forget I said it. You said you wanted to understand, and I figured this was the easiest way to do so, take something you hold dear and attack it, to get you into the mindset. The royals are a part of what makes the UK what it is, I know that. And like it or not, many in the US feel the same way about thier firearms. When you're a nation born from battle, you don't take them for granted. when you've got to fend for yourself in wilderness that would swallow the UK whole with room to spare, you don't take them for granted. When you live that way for years apon years upon years, it gets ingrainded into you. Take ether of them, the royals or the guns, away, and there is really no way to tell how people would react. (And for the record, I'm of noble Irish heritatage. We even had a castle http://en.wikipedia....unguaire_Castle. NBC network had run a localized version of "Who do you think you are" and that kind got me started looking back and when I came across what had happened it left a sour taste in my mouth.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aussieinuk Posted December 19, 2012 Author Share #47 Posted December 19, 2012 OK, OK, first I'm going to apoligize, I was pushing your button intentioanly, trying to get you into a certain frame of mind. take everything I said and forget I said it. You said you wanted to understand, and I figured this was the easiest way to do so, take something you hold dear and attack it, to get you into the mindset. The royals are a part of what makes the UK what it is, I know that. And like it or not, many in the US feel the same way about thier firearms. When you're a nation born from battle, you don't take them for granted. when you've got to fend for yourself in wilderness that would swallow the UK whole with room to spare, you don't take them for granted. When you live that way for years apon years upon years, it gets ingrainded into you. Take ether of them, the royals or the guns, away, and there is really no way to tell how people would react. (And for the record, I'm of noble Irish heritatage. We even had a castle http://en.wikipedia....unguaire_Castle. NBC network had run a localized version of "Who do you think you are" and that kind got me started looking back and when I came across what had happened it left a sour taste in my mouth.) I thought you were trying to wind me up, but I am very thick skinned.Apology accepted. I joined this forum not only to share my interest in transit and other subjects, but also to make friends not enemies. I must tell you that you may be surprised to learn that I am Irish. Even though my handle is "aussieinuk", I was born in Ireland. My family moved to Australia when I was a kid. I have been living in the UK for about 5 years now.I know Dunguaire Castle well. I have driven past it. I understand how you feel about your American heritage, and I am also sorry if I touched a nerve. It was certainly not my intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted December 19, 2012 Share #48 Posted December 19, 2012 So you readily advocate a society where only criminals and the police are armed? Which one of those groups do you belong to? I didn't say people shouldn't be armed... but why do you need an overpowered weapon? Nobody has answered that yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted December 19, 2012 Share #49 Posted December 19, 2012 I understand how you feel about your American heritage, and I am also sorry if I touched a nerve. It was certainly not my intention. you didn't touch a nerve, it's sort of "Method Posting", I only brought it up to help carry the routine. I find the best way to learn something is through experince, and that counts for emotions and feelings two. If I had told you what I was going to do, you wouldn't have reacted the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted December 19, 2012 Share #50 Posted December 19, 2012 I didn't say people shouldn't be armed... but why do you need an overpowered weapon? Nobody has answered that yet... "Overpowered"? What does that even mean? What's the standard for power? Are we talking about muzzle energies? Velocity? A new unit that has yet to be defined? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.