NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, i just remembered that it was this week (april 20 1999) that the Columbine shootings happened and i thought it would be a good idea for us all to remember and pray for the people involved or connected to it. Thankyou

Instead of praying, can we do something useful?

I agree with Backwoods. Praying will do nothing for those people. And, in my oppinion, for those that do, it would simply be a waste of time. Why not do something to stop that from happening again?

I agree with Backwoods. Praying will do nothing for those people. And, in my oppinion, for those that do, it would simply be a waste of time. Why not do something to stop that from happening again?

What do you suggest?
(I disagree that prayer is useless, but would like to hear your alternate suggestion.)

Get parents *involved* with actually parenting their kids.

The biggest failure in post 1970 America is the 50% divorce rate and latch key kids.

Well let's think about how to prevent such things?

-Censor pop culture?
-Ban guns?
-School uniforms?

How about a zero-tolorance policy for bullying? As it was said in one of the suicide notes that this massacre was carried out because he was "teased".

Better yet! Why don't we make certain that people with mental ailments, people like Harris and Klebold, get the treatment they need?

(I'm not trying to lay blame on the victims, just bringing up an alternative viewpoint)

Well let's think about how to prevent such things?

-Censor pop culture?
-Ban guns?
-School uniforms?

How about a zero-tolorance policy for bullying? As it was said in one of the suicide notes that this massacre was carried out because he was "teased".

Better yet! Why don't we make certain that people with mental ailments, people like Harris and Klebold, get the treatment they need?

(I'm not trying to lay blame on the victims, just bringing up an alternative viewpoint)

How about throwing the parents in jail, too? They obviously failed miserably in bringing up their offspring.

Abolish 'free' compulsory education.

Abolish 'free' compulsory education.

That's probably more likely than anything else!! :)

Let's just outlaw Colorado and be done with it.

Abolish 'free' compulsory education.
Well of course, education's to blame. How did we miss that?


Speaking of Columbine, has anyone else noticed how little coverage has been given to the mass killing a few weeks ago at that Minnesota Reservation school. Now why is that? It couldn't perhaps be because it was 'only' Native Americans who were killed, perhaps? A minority that the US media isn't too interested in.

I think what we really need to do to prevent things like this from happening is better security for schools. I mean do we seriously think that a 40 year old security guard shaped like a donut is going to stop a teenager with a gun? I mean come on think about it for a second. We need things like metal detectors. For example Im from LA and in most of the schools they have pretty good security measures. I know live in Alabama and the security sucks. If I was really crazy enough and suicidal I could probably get around the security here.

Well of course, education's to blame. How did we miss that?


Speaking of Columbine, has anyone else noticed how little coverage has been given to the mass killing a few weeks ago at that Minnesota Reservation school. Now why is that? It couldn't perhaps be because it was 'only' Native Americans who were killed, perhaps? A minority that the US media isn't too interested in.
No, I'd say it's more that we've become desensitized to it. School shootings don't draw the viewers like they used to.

Well let's think about how to prevent such things?

-Censor pop culture?
-Ban guns?
-School uniforms?

I'm assuming that those things are jokes and not intended to be serious.

How about a zero-tolorance policy for bullying? As it was said in one of the suicide notes that this massacre was carried out because he was "teased".

Better yet! Why don't we make certain that people with mental ailments, people like Harris and Klebold, get the treatment they need?

(I'm not trying to lay blame on the victims, just bringing up an alternative viewpoint)Now these two things make sense. As well as the person who suggested harsher punishments for the parents.

i'll pray that God's will be done. Because ultimately, it will... and besides, that's how Jesus told us to pray.

as for this anniversary, let's remember their families, at least (if you're not into prayer, you can remember them.. think about them).

Let's just outlaw Colorado and be done with it.
Hey! i'm from colorado and THAT'S NOT VERY NICE! :mad:

i'll pray that God's will be done. Because ultimately, it will... and besides, that's how Jesus told us to pray.

as for this anniversary, let's remember their families, at least (if you're not into prayer, you can remember them.. think about them).
Hundreds of people die everyday in tragic circumstances, I don't see why we should care anymore for someone just because their death resulted in a media circus.

No, I'd say it's more that we've become desensitized to it. School shootings don't draw the viewers like they used to.
Good. Maybe with fewer viewers they'll get cancelled.

You know, the postal workers have been very quiet of late. Remember a while back, when they'd "go postal" and blow away a Taco Bell?

You know, the postal workers have been very quiet of late. Remember a while back, when they'd "go postal" and blow away a Taco Bell?Don't you mean that postal wokers used to "go high school"?

Let's just outlaw Colorado and be done with it.


I like the av's :(

or I did when the nhl existed.

Don't you mean that postal wokers used to "go high school"?

The postal workers were first, so I'll use them as my pop culture reference. You know, how your grandfather might occasionally call a gas station an "Esso". :)

OMG He said pray!

GOD :gundge:

Christians :gundge:

Other people's right to express their religious beliefs just as athists do :gundge:

school uniforms and gun banning a joke?

the uk has far less crime like this (although there is the occasional incidence)

surely america needs these sorts of things, how many less deaths would there be if people werent shooting guns around?

Australia has banned guns and it is fine although there is always the odd incident once in a blue moon here too (such as one involving a cross-bow and an ex-boyfriend a few years ago...). Banning guns is the way to go I reckon.

school uniforms and gun banning a joke?

the uk has far less crime like this (although there is the occasional incidence)

surely america needs these sorts of things, how many less deaths would there be if people werent shooting guns around?

School uniforms reduce crime rates? Isn't that a little bit far-fetched?

Australia has banned guns and it is fine although there is always the odd incident once in a blue moon here too (such as one involving a cross-bow and an ex-boyfriend a few years ago...). Banning guns is the way to go I reckon.

Someone else's ex-boyfriend right......that wasn;t YOU was it?

Keep the guns ... ban school!

School uniforms reduce crime rates? Isn't that a little bit far-fetched?

Would you hold up a liquor store in short pants and a tie?

school uniforms and gun banning a joke?

the uk has far less crime like this (although there is the occasional incidence)

surely america needs these sorts of things, how many less deaths would there be if people werent shooting guns around?

The entire UK has 60 million people. The US has 300 million. Columbine incidents are uncommon here. Take similar UK events (like THIS one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4325905.stm), multiply the total number by 5, and then consider how much less of this type of crime you really have. :(

Also, you guys just use knives instead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4492389.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/4484647.stm
...and it isn't new:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3244709.stm
shoot... just type "knife" into the BBC news website.

What's next? The slingshot makes a comeback?

Would you hold up a liquor store in short pants and a tie?

Now that you've given me the idea, I don't think there would be any other way to do it.

School uniforms reduce crime rates? Isn't that a little bit far-fetched?

I guess the good thing about school uniforms is that kids can't get bullied for what they wear. Virtually every school in the UK has compulsory uniforms up to age 16.

But seriously, I'm from the UK, and I find the gun laws in the US terrifying. I mean, you can buy guns in Wal-Mart. Surely, if you ban guns, there's going to be a whole lot less gun-related crime. If you can't get hold of a gun, you can't shoot someone, it pretty much is that simple.

And I'd suggest people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss prayer, while I think there are other useful things we can do aswell, I believe prayer can be really powerful. Have you ever tried it?

Get parents *involved* with actually parenting their kids.
This right here is the BEST idea!
How many of the kids who have committed these atrocities come from bad homes, abusive homes, unloving parents, undiscipling parents, etc.

A lot of parents today are more interested in helping/loving themselves than they are in helping/loving their kids.

I am a mom and I see it all the time. You don't have to look far.
I have to work because my husband is a loser (sorry, it's true)... so, my kids must be home alone for a short time. But, I spend my evenings and weekends with them. We play together, have fun together, I love them and discpline them when necessary. They still love me and hug me all the time at 11 and 15.

We need more parents who do this.
Well let's think about how to prevent such things?

-Censor pop culture?
-Ban guns?
-School uniforms?

How about a zero-tolorance policy for bullying? As it was said in one of the suicide notes that this massacre was carried out because he was "teased".

Better yet! Why don't we make certain that people with mental ailments, people like Harris and Klebold, get the treatment they need?


You have some good ideas here.
Banning guns... well, not entirely... but, kids have WAY TOO EASY access to guns. (Parents not watching their kids?) We need better security at school, I think.
Uniforms... Great idea!! Lots of kids are poor and get made fun of because of their clothes and social stature (sp?).
Zero-tolerance fo bullying... great idea!! However, something needs to be done about the teachers who don't give a shit. :mad: My son's school has this policy in effect and there are quite a few teachers who have "blew him off" when he told them about situations with bullies. Teachers need to also be disciplined for not caring and not doing something about it. :mad:
Giving kids treatment who need it... great idea!!

This world is getting worse... and most people don't care. They just ignore those who need help. And then everyone wonders why that happened and how that happened. :( :rolleyes:

Well let's think about how to prevent such things?

-Censor pop culture?
-Ban guns?
-School uniforms?


I am not going to say anything on the first two, anyone seeing my previous posts knows my thoughts on them.

In highschool, we used to have school uniforms and there were still clique's and groups. The only thing that changed was getting dressed for school was easy.

I guess the good thing about school uniforms is that kids can't get bullied for what they wear. Virtually every school in the UK has compulsory uniforms up to age 16.

But seriously, I'm from the UK, and I find the gun laws in the US terrifying. I mean, you can buy guns in Wal-Mart. Surely, if you ban guns, there's going to be a whole lot less gun-related crime. If you can't get hold of a gun, you can't shoot someone, it pretty much is that simple.

And I'd suggest people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss prayer, while I think there are other useful things we can do aswell, I believe prayer can be really powerful. Have you ever tried it?

Thankyou for supporting me in suggesting prayer isn't as useless as many people think but kids can easily get bullied about uniform (how they wear it, how old it is and in a slack uniformed school, how expensive it was) but i don't know if its worse in a non uniform school cause every school i've been to has a uniform

Maybe we should have some education for the bullies, then maybe this type of thing wouldn't happen so often.

I don’t think that uniforms would work. You might look the same in school, but you’ll still know who’s rich or poor, goth or skater and so on…
Also, what about the expenses for the uniform? How much money needs to be spend each year? It might be more of a hindering than a help for the poor.


I also don’t think that more security is the way to go. Why is this security needed anyway? Here in Denmark we have neither guards nor metal detectors in the schools. But then again, our gun laws are very strict, so these very little chance that a teen might get hold of a gun.
The only solution here is to ban guns. Let hunters keep a single low caliber hunting rifle, but ban them for everyone else. That, I believe, would prevent most tragedies like Columbine. Of course, it won’t prevent people from using a kitchen knife, but it would prevent shooting sprees.


A zero tolerance policy on bullying is a good idea. Let those who bully know that it’s wrong. And show them that it has a consequence, a stern talking to, a letter to the parents or something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Markreich
Get parents *involved* with actually parenting their kids.
This right here is the BEST idea!
How many of the kids who have committed these atrocities come from bad homes, abusive homes, unloving parents, undiscipling parents, etc.

A lot of parents today are more interested in helping/loving themselves than they are in helping/loving their kids.

I am a mom and I see it all the time. You don't have to look far.
I have to work because my husband is a loser (sorry, it's true)... so, my kids must be home alone for a short time. But, I spend my evenings and weekends with them. We play together, have fun together, I love them and discpline them when necessary. They still love me and hug me all the time at 11 and 15.
We need more parents who do this.

Thanks. I'm glad to see someone like minded on here. :)

Sounds like you have some great kids. Good luck!!

I don’t think that uniforms would work. You might look the same in school, but you’ll still know who’s rich or poor, goth or skater and so on…
Also, what about the expenses for the uniform? How much money needs to be spend each year? It might be more of a hindering than a help for the poor.


I also don’t think that more security is the way to go. Why is this security needed anyway? Here in Denmark we have neither guards nor metal detectors in the schools. But then again, our gun laws are very strict, so these very little chance that a teen might get hold of a gun.
The only solution here is to ban guns. Let hunters keep a single low caliber hunting rifle, but ban them for everyone else. That, I believe, would prevent most tragedies like Columbine. Of course, it won’t prevent people from using a kitchen knife, but it would prevent shooting sprees.


A zero tolerance policy on bullying is a good idea. Let those who bully know that it’s wrong. And show them that it has a consequence, a stern talking to, a letter to the parents or something like that.

I have a better idea. Make contraceptive implants for men and women mandatory. Then have a licensing process for people who wish to reproduce.

No reproduction without a license. The application procedure should be at least as stringent as the application for adopting a child.

You would have a higher percentage of people who took parenting seriously.

The parents in the Columbine case were completely unaware that their sons had guns. One had a shotgun laying in plain sight on top of his dresser in his bedroom - for weeks. Their idea of "dealing with" their child's problems was to send them to a psychiatrist and give them Prozac. They had no idea about the bullying. So obviously, the parents had no idea what was going on with their own children.

We're lucky the kids didn't do something far worse.

For the Anti-gunners in this thread,

I have found a list of the weapons that these kids had

Weapons identified in the Columbine High shooting

—One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol

—One sawed-off double-barrel shotgun

—One sawed off pump action shotgun

—One 9 mm semi-automatic rifle

—More than 30 homemade explosives, including pipe bombs, crude hand grenades and a propane tank (similar to those used on gas barbecue grills) with explosives attached.

First off, the shotguns were illegally obtained due to being sawed off stock/barrels. These two were illegal due to a lack of a class III lisence.

The tec DC-9 was banned durring the Assult Weapons Ban that went into effect in 1994. It was still in effect durring the time of this shooting.

I am not sure about the 9mm Semi-auto rifle... I could not get enough details on it.

As far as the bombs go.... it is amazing what one can do with simple household items.

My point is, 3/4 of those guns were illegal to the general populace to begin with. The 9mm would have been hard as one has to be 21 to buy 9mm ammo.

Damn the media for having everyone beleave that all the weapons used were AK's and other legal rifles.

On another point, it was a clear cut case of bad parenting and folks saying the wrong things to the wrong people.

For the Anti-gunners in this thread,

I have found a list of the weapons that these kids had

Weapons identified in the Columbine High shooting

—One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol

—One sawed-off double-barrel shotgun

—One sawed off pump action shotgun

—One 9 mm semi-automatic rifle

—More than 30 homemade explosives, including pipe bombs, crude hand grenades and a propane tank (similar to those used on gas barbecue grills) with explosives attached.

First off, the shotguns were illegally obtained due to being sawed off stock/barrels. These two were illegal due to a lack of a class III lisence.

The tec DC-9 was banned durring the Assult Weapons Ban that went into effect in 1994. It was still in effect durring the time of this shooting.

I am not sure about the 9mm Semi-auto rifle... I could not get enough details on it.

As far as the bombs go.... it is amazing what one can do with simple household items.

My point is, 3/4 of those guns were illegal to the general populace to begin with. The 9mm would have been hard as one has to be 21 to buy 9mm ammo.

Damn the media for having everyone beleave that all the weapons used were AK's and other legal rifles.

On another point, it was a clear cut case of bad parenting and folks saying the wrong things to the wrong people.


The shotguns were legally obtained and then illegally sawed-off.

The Tec-DC9 was banned from production by the assault-weapons ban, existing weapons were still around and thus could be sold if they were made prior to the ban.


The 9mm rifle was a Hipoint 9mm carbine, perfectly legal.

All of their weapons were legal and legally obtained, but the shotguns were illegally modified.

They used a friend who was 18 to get the long-guns, and a friend over 21 to get the pistol.

I guess the good thing about school uniforms is that kids can't get bullied for what they wear. Virtually every school in the UK has compulsory uniforms up to age 16.

But seriously, I'm from the UK, and I find the gun laws in the US terrifying. I mean, you can buy guns in Wal-Mart. Surely, if you ban guns, there's going to be a whole lot less gun-related crime. If you can't get hold of a gun, you can't shoot someone, it pretty much is that simple.

And I'd suggest people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss prayer, while I think there are other useful things we can do aswell, I believe prayer can be really powerful. Have you ever tried it?



Wal-mart sells shotguns and hunting rifles, do those scare you? Does an armed citizenry scare you? Of course you don't want Americans armed, you'd like to reassert the rule of England here in the USA, wouldn't you?


England has a LOT more violent crime in general (rapes about 200,000 a year, reported) and a great deal more robberies, burglaries, and assaults.

Only in murder does the USA surpass the UK.

The shotguns were legally obtained and then illegally sawed-off.

The Tec-DC9 was banned from production by the assault-weapons ban, existing weapons were still around and thus could be sold if they were made prior to the ban.


The 9mm rifle was a Hipoint 9mm carbine, perfectly legal.

All of their weapons were legal and legally obtained, but the shotguns were illegally modified.

They used a friend who was 18 to get the long-guns, and a friend over 21 to get the pistol.

I was wondering that that 9mm was. Thanks for the info! From my understanding though, the guns were still illegally thiers due to age. It does not change my stance.

I was wondering that that 9mm was. Thanks for the info! From my understanding though, the guns were still illegally thiers due to age. It does not change my stance.


One turned 18 before the shooting though, so it wouldn't have made any difference. Anyway, a minor can legally own a rifle or shotgun, in most states anyway. Anybody between 18-20 can own a pistol if they were given it by a guardian/parent over 21.

One turned 18 before the shooting though, so it wouldn't have made any difference. Anyway, a minor can legally own a rifle or shotgun, in most states anyway. Anybody between 18-20 can own a pistol if they were given it by a guardian/parent over 21.

I stand corrected then.

I stand corrected then.


However it should be noted that neither of the two boys was given their weapons by a parent or guardian, they used "front folks" (straw-purchasers) to fill-out the forms and make the purchases for them.

Something that is highly illegal.

Yeah, I think you have highlighted the only scary part of gun ownership, the laws. Things claimed to be illegal by one source is illegal to another.

Well of course, education's to blame. How did we miss that?


Speaking of Columbine, has anyone else noticed how little coverage has been given to the mass killing a few weeks ago at that Minnesota Reservation school. Now why is that? It couldn't perhaps be because it was 'only' Native Americans who were killed, perhaps? A minority that the US media isn't too interested in.


It's because America is in the midst of a WAR. The news cycle has been dominated by how many more American men and women are being killed on a daily basis.

But I agree that it looks like it was swept under the rug. Although I thought it looked that way, not because American Indians were killed, but because it was an American Indian who did the killing.

I think that is the main reason we need a national gun law standard, to avoid having people getting into trouble over legal issues they might not even be aware of.

The national standard would have to abolish the following unconstitutional legislation.

The 1934 National Firearms Act

The Gun Control Act of 1968

The Brady Crime Bill of 1994

The 1988 Firearms Act

Agreed, Martel. I will apologize to all for giving flawed info on the earlier posts.

One of my major problems with the 1934 NFA is that it creates a 200 dollar tax on the right to buy a machinegun, sawed-off weapon, flamethrower, grenade launcher, mortar, etc, and it requires that you sign away your 4th amendments right (the ATF can search your house anytime they wish, without warning or probable cause, if you're a Class III permit holder). I hate the idea that a right can be taxed, and that a right can require the giving up of another right.

The taxing of a firearm like that, probably does violate commerce laws. Furthermore, the very nature of the 1988 Gun control acts, which ban civilians from buying machineguns made after 1988 (restricting them to ones that were registered on form III or form IV prior to 1988) means that an AK-47 fully-automatic in the USA will cost about 20,000 dollars to legally obtain. I could go to central Africa and buy one for 50 bucks, but here in the USA you have to fork over an arm and a leg to exercise your right to bear arms.

Perhaps for a machinegun there ought to be some sort of training class or safety assurances, but I believe that licensing (back-door registration) and outright registration, is simply morally repugnant and not even constitutional.

I also hold that instant background checks are wrong because the ATF was found to be not only copying the yellow forms dealers have to store in their businesses, but when they got caught doing that, they switched to keeping a "Check list" everytime the dealer called in a check on a prospective gun buyer, the ATF would keep a list and add a "check" next to their name, either "long-gun" or "hang-gun" (that's all they learn is if it's a rifle/shotgun, or a pistol, from the background check call) but by doing this, they know who has guns and a rough idea of how many.

Wal-mart sells shotguns and hunting rifles, do those scare you? Does an armed citizenry scare you? Of course you don't want Americans armed, you'd like to reassert the rule of England here in the USA, wouldn't you?


England has a LOT more violent crime in general (rapes about 200,000 a year, reported) and a great deal more robberies, burglaries, and assaults.

Only in murder does the USA surpass the UK.


Why would anyone with a right mind want to rule the USA at all? There's nothing there worth of invading anyway.

And well, if you'd know history... then you'd know that the so highly proclaimed "armed citizenry" got their butt kicked by the redcoats and could only be saved... by the French (sad, really sad).

It's kind of funny, that argument of the armed citizenry is so stupid. Like they could defend the US against an invasion, rofl, yeah right. What they could do is stand in the way of the US armed forces and maybe get used as decoys.

As for Columbine... I can't say I really cared, nor do I care today. Amusing though... why'd someone get "One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol, one sawed-off double-barrel shotgun, one sawed off pump action shotgun and one 9 mm semi-automatic rifle" anyway? For self defense? Against what lol? The mutated north american super killer squirrel? Possibly.

I still think Americans are just compensating with their guns. And those with most guns have to compensate most.

Either that or the only way to solve problems in the US is to go for a gun. Which actually wouldn't surprise me.

Why would anyone with a right mind want to rule the USA at all? There's nothing there worth of invading anyway.

And well, if you'd know history... then you'd know that the so highly proclaimed "armed citizenry" got their butt kicked by the redcoats and could only be saved... by the French (sad, really sad).

It's kind of funny, that argument of the armed citizenry is so stupid. Like they could defend the US against an invasion, rofl, yeah right. What they could do is stand in the way of the US armed forces and maybe get used as decoys.

As for Columbine... I can't say I really cared, nor do I care today. Amusing though... why'd someone get "One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol, one sawed-off double-barrel shotgun, one sawed off pump action shotgun and one 9 mm semi-automatic rifle" anyway? For self defense? Against what lol? The mutated north american super killer squirrel? Possibly.

I still think Americans are just compensating with their guns. And those with most guns have to compensate most.

Either that or the only way to solve problems in the US is to go for a gun. Which actually wouldn't surprise me.


You show how little you know about guns, they didn't "Get" the guns modified, they illegally modified them after they obtained them, and they obtained them with illegal means also. They weren't getting them for self-defense, they were getting them to kill people. Most people who buy guns are getting them to defend themselves or for other legitimate purposes, not to cause mayhem.

I don't think 99% of society ought to suffer because 1% may abuse and misuse guns.


Anyway, what better home-defense weapon is there than a 12 gauge pump action shotgun? I'd love to have a sawed-off 12 gauge for ease of maneuver inside my house, but I refuse to illegally own a Class III and I refuse to go through the registration to legally get one. I don't break the law, but I won't get sucked into an unconstitutional situation. Until the 1934 NFA is gone, I won't own a Class III...


Let me guess, you've never fired a gun a day in your life, am I right?

This right here is the BEST idea!
How many of the kids who have committed these atrocities come from bad homes, abusive homes, unloving parents, undiscipling parents, etc.

A lot of parents today are more interested in helping/loving themselves than they are in helping/loving their kids.

I am a mom and I see it all the time. You don't have to look far.
I have to work because my husband is a loser (sorry, it's true)... so, my kids must be home alone for a short time. But, I spend my evenings and weekends with them. We play together, have fun together, I love them and discpline them when necessary. They still love me and hug me all the time at 11 and 15.

We need more parents who do this.


You have some good ideas here.
Banning guns... well, not entirely... but, kids have WAY TOO EASY access to guns. (Parents not watching their kids?) We need better security at school, I think.
Uniforms... Great idea!! Lots of kids are poor and get made fun of because of their clothes and social stature (sp?).
Zero-tolerance fo bullying... great idea!! However, something needs to be done about the teachers who don't give a shit. :mad: My son's school has this policy in effect and there are quite a few teachers who have "blew him off" when he told them about situations with bullies. Teachers need to also be disciplined for not caring and not doing something about it. :mad:
Giving kids treatment who need it... great idea!!

This world is getting worse... and most people don't care. They just ignore those who need help. And then everyone wonders why that happened and how that happened. :( :rolleyes:

I agree entierly with your remarks. The problem we teachers tend to have with complaining about parents not careing and being babysitters is a double edged sword. We need to work together. If they are allowed to act like fools at home, they will be expecting the same at school, but it's also the other way around; too many teachers just shrug off dissruptive behavior and this gives the student the expectation from all the other teachers. what is needed is both better parenting and better classroom management.

You show how little you know about guns, they didn't "Get" the guns modified, they illegally modified them afetr they obtained them, and they obtained them with illegal means also. They weren't getting them for self-defense, they were getting them to kill people. Most people who buy guns are getting them to defend themselves or for other legitimate purposes, not to cause mayhem.

I don't think 99% of society ought to suffer because 1% may abuse and misuse guns.


Anyway, what better home-defense weapon is there than a 12 gauge pump action shotgun? I'd love to have a sawed-off 12 gauge for ease of maneuver inside my house, but I refuse to illegally own a Class III and I refuse to go through the registration to legally get one. I don't break the law, but I won't get sucked into an unconstitutional situation. Until the 1934 NFA is gone, I won't own a Class III...


Let me guess, you've never fired a gun a day in your life, am I right?

A good example that people seem to overlook:
There are 300 million guns in the United States in active use in civilian hands.

That's up from 200 millions guns.

In 1991, the number of firearm homicides that year was 17,986.

In 2001, the number of firearm homicides that year was 11,671.

It's still going down.

That's a substantial reduction - even though substantially more guns were in use in 2001. Also, across the same period, 35 states enacted legislation to more freely allow concealed carry - a move that anti-gun people predicted would cause more firearm deaths - but the deaths didn't happen.

A zero tolerance policy on bullying is a good idea. Let those who bully know that it’s wrong. And show them that it has a consequence, a stern talking to, a letter to the parents or something like that.


A stern talking to does absolutely noting in todays American society. The student will just suck their teeth at you ( a sign of dissrespect) and victimize themselves. There is need for more discipline in the schools, but ster talkings and notes that never arrive do /absolutely/ nothing in the way of encouraging reform.

I guess the good thing about school uniforms is that kids can't get bullied for what they wear. Virtually every school in the UK has compulsory uniforms up to age 16.

But seriously, I'm from the UK, and I find the gun laws in the US terrifying. I mean, you can buy guns in Wal-Mart. Surely, if you ban guns, there's going to be a whole lot less gun-related crime. If you can't get hold of a gun, you can't shoot someone, it pretty much is that simple.

And I'd suggest people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss prayer, while I think there are other useful things we can do aswell, I believe prayer can be really powerful. Have you ever tried it?

Good, then kids can be bullied for who they really are.

Hey, i just remembered that it was this week (april 20 1999) that the Columbine shootings happened and i thought it would be a good idea for us all to remember and pray for the people involved or connected to it. Thankyou
Good deal. I shall pray and meditate on it. Thank you. :)

Hey, i just remembered that it was this week (april 20 1999) that the Columbine shootings happened and i thought it would be a good idea for us all to remember and pray for the people involved or connected to it. Thankyou


Yes, instead of praying we should shoot that mother fucker up again! :sniper: That'll teach those twats a lesson :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: FUCK YOU ALL!

For the Anti-gunners in this thread,

I have found a list of the weapons that these kids had

Weapons identified in the Columbine High shooting

—One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol

—One sawed-off double-barrel shotgun

—One sawed off pump action shotgun

—One 9 mm semi-automatic rifle

—More than 30 homemade explosives, including pipe bombs, crude hand grenades and a propane tank (similar to those used on gas barbecue grills) with explosives attached.

First off, the shotguns were illegally obtained due to being sawed off stock/barrels. These two were illegal due to a lack of a class III lisence.

The tec DC-9 was banned durring the Assult Weapons Ban that went into effect in 1994. It was still in effect durring the time of this shooting.

I am not sure about the 9mm Semi-auto rifle... I could not get enough details on it.

As far as the bombs go.... it is amazing what one can do with simple household items.

My point is, 3/4 of those guns were illegal to the general populace to begin with. The 9mm would have been hard as one has to be 21 to buy 9mm ammo.

Damn the media for having everyone beleave that all the weapons used were AK's and other legal rifles.

On another point, it was a clear cut case of bad parenting and folks saying the wrong things to the wrong people.


But, but, but....it's so much EASIER to blame the firearms than society, or parenting, or ineffective educators!!!! We can't have you logical types showing how wrong the media and the sheeple are! Go away!!!

It's amazing how someone can be so scared of an inanimate object, no? :confused:

Yes, instead of praying we should shoot that mother fucker up again! :sniper: That'll teach those twats a lesson :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper: FUCK YOU ALL!


Do I smell a ripoff? Pretty unoriginal dude, try harder next time. :)

I agree entierly with your remarks. The problem we teachers tend to have with complaining about parents not careing and being babysitters is a double edged sword. We need to work together. If they are allowed to act like fools at home, they will be expecting the same at school, but it's also the other way around; too many teachers just shrug off dissruptive behavior and this gives the student the expectation from all the other teachers. what is needed is both better parenting and better classroom management.
Agreed!

A stern talking to does absolutely noting in todays American society. The student will just suck their teeth at you ( a sign of dissrespect) and victimize themselves. There is need for more discipline in the schools, but stern talkings and notes that never arrive do /absolutely/ nothing in the way of encouraging reform.

I agree with you here. Talking to the children does nothing.
It HAS to be followed-up at home. Schools can no longer "discipline", at least not in a way that is effective. And, if the parents do not back up the teachers, the lesson that should have been learned is lost. :(

I have a child who is the class clown. It is very frustrating for the teachers and I. But, we are working togther to help him become better behaved. They email me or call me if there is an issue. (I agree, notes don't work) They take care of it at school, I take care of it at home, and he is getting better every day.

He is still having a hard time, he loves to make people laugh and is very good at it. He keeps us very entertained at home. :D I am trying to teach him when it is okay and NOT okay to be silly. :)

I don't understand the American gun laws. Sure, I can understand the need for the right to bear arms back in the times of the revolution, but now-a-day's it's just a licence to kill. There needs to be more gun control so that tragedies like Coulumbine don't happen.

While I have no problems with guns, how the hell do you justify owning an assualt weapon? Target shooting and killing people are the only real uses for them, and the NRA wants them legal for any psychotic to get his hands on.
The problem is a lack of interest from anyone the kids/guys want to be interested. Bullying is the states is happening in stupefying amounts then we act surpised when kids can not take it anymore.
On the school uniforms, get bowling for columbine and watch the dress code example. It is a kid wearing normal clothes and pulls 10+ firearms, including a sawn-off shotgun, out of his clothes. While Fahrenheit 911 is crappily made anti-bush propanganda, Bowling for Columbine is awesome.
On Micheal Moore watch Y.A.A.F.M at Zipperfish.com, that is seriuosly cool. Rips him to shreds using reasoned debate.

I don't understand the American gun laws. Sure, I can understand the need for the right to bear arms back in the times of the revolution, but now-a-day's it's just a licence to kill. There needs to be more gun control so that tragedies like Coulumbine don't happen.

Last I checked, it's only legal to kill in self-defense. Police are never fast enough when you need them in a life-and-death situation.

There doesn't need to be more gun control. There needs to be more children control by parents. They were the failure in the Columbine equation.

But, but, but....it's so much EASIER to blame the firearms than ... ineffective educators!!!!


The educators in that building saved countless lives. one of the gentlemen sacrificed his life to save the students. This man was a credit to educators and to civilization.

While I have no problems with guns, how the hell do you justify owning an assualt weapon?


Do YOU know what an assault weapon is? THERE IS NO LEGAL DEFINITION. It's a gun-grabber and media term. Now, an assault rifle? That's a different story. They're already regulated--heavily. According to what the media and Bradys' label assault weapons, a shotgun falls into that category--semi-automatic, with a pistol grip (note, a pistol grip isn't necessarily a grip where there is no stock--it's just a curved grip--most are still a good foot long, and still go up to your shoulder). By the antis definition, I already own several assault weapons.


Target shooting and killing people are the only real uses for them, and the NRA wants them legal for any psychotic to get his hands on.


And your NRA source for that information? Or were you using an anti-gun source, who of course know EVERYTHING about the NRA or shooters in general, even though most have never fired a gun. Defense is a very good use. Firearms stop more crimes by not being fired (the criminal sees the weapon, and runs).


The problem is a lack of interest from anyone the kids/guys want to be interested. Bullying is the states is happening in stupefying amounts then we act surpised when kids can not take it anymore.


I'm with you on that one.


On the school uniforms, get bowling for columbine and watch the dress code example. It is a kid wearing normal clothes and pulls 10+ firearms, including a sawn-off shotgun, out of his clothes. While Fahrenheit 911 is crappily made anti-bush propanganda, Bowling for Columbine is awesome.
On Micheal Moore watch Y.A.A.F.M at Zipperfish.com, that is seriuosly cool. Rips him to shreds using reasoned debate.

Moore NEVER put the facts together in a chronological order. Bowling for Columbine while may contain some snippets of fact, the presentation creates a story that is pure fiction--Moore has never actually done a documentary. Documentaries have chronilogical events and actual facts, not out-of-order events and emotional rhetoric.

The educators in that building saved countless lives. one of the gentlemen sacrificed his life to save the students. This man was a credit to educators and to civilization.

I'm not saying they weren't brave. I was saying they were ineffective. Had any of those teachers been allowed to be armed, those kids wouldn't have been able to kill so many and the incident would have been over much quicker.

I said ineffective educators--doesn't always mean teachers (school boards, principals, superintendents, etc.) There are those that tie the hands of teachers as well.

Case in point: Teachers can't discipline kids in school anymore.

I don't understand the American gun laws. Sure, I can understand the need for the right to bear arms back in the times of the revolution, but now-a-day's it's just a licence to kill. There needs to be more gun control so that tragedies like Coulumbine don't happen.

So when do we take away cars? They kill more people than firearms every year in the US.
How about bathtubs? They *also* kill more people than firearms every year in the US.

The laws are perfectly adequate. What we need is better ENFORCEMENT, not new LEGISLATION.

Or parents that give a shit.

There are so many people at blame it is almost lunacy..

the parents: who never went into thier kids rooms and looked around because when the cops searched one of their rooms they found a shotgun barrell out of the bed, and varous bomb making componets in there

the doctors of Eric Harris-who when the prescribed zoloft to him he reported that he was having suicidal and homicidal tendecies, they took him off of zoloft and put him on another brand name of drug that has the same drug as zoloft

the littleton police(up to a point)-because from reports i have heard the denver swat was ready and had a plan to go in when the massacre in the library was going on,the littleton police did not give them the okay to go in until about 45 minutes later which meant they had to change thier plan of going to the library to clear em out to going from classroom to classroom to see if they could get them, which in turned meant that one of the wounded had to wait 3 and a half hours before he was even seen by the swat team

but the ones who deserved the blame the most along with the parents were the "friends" who bought them the guns, because if it wasn't for them they wouldn't have got the guns to do the massacre......

but all we can do is to analyze this tragic incident and the many others and try to help prevent them from happening again

So when do we take away cars? They kill more people than firearms every year in the US.
How about bathtubs? They *also* kill more people than firearms every year in the US.

The laws are perfectly adequate. What we need is better ENFORCEMENT, not new LEGISLATION.

Or parents that give a shit.

Cars are to get from place to place. A perfect car would become a teleporter and therefore hurt no-one.

Bath-tubs are to wash oneself. A perfect bath tub would also be safe.

Guns are to kill and maim. That is their purpose. A perfect gun would still kill and maim people.

Cars are to get from place to place. A perfect car would become a teleporter and therefore hurt no-one.

Bath-tubs are to wash oneself. A perfect bath tub would also be safe.

Guns are to kill and maim. That is their purpose. A perfect gun would still kill and maim people.

I must be using it wrong then. I've never killed or maimed anyone.

I must be using it wrong then. I've never killed or maimed anyone.

If you are only using it for target shooting, why shouldn't it be locked up at the range?

Cars are to get from place to place. A perfect car would become a teleporter and therefore hurt no-one.

Bath-tubs are to wash oneself. A perfect bath tub would also be safe.

Guns are to kill and maim. That is their purpose. A perfect gun would still kill and maim people.
Bathtubs are also used to make gin so would the perfect bathtub make the perfect gin?

Just to put in my 0.02, I have many relatives with children (ages 10-15 or so) who have taught thier children how to use guns. In the area in which they live, hunting and shooting is a common sport. The kids have yet to kill anyone and don't seem like they will be doing so any time soon. Guns are not the problem. As long as there is good parenting, guns are not a threat. It is when there is little or no parenting that guns can become a dangerous thing to have around.

Bathtubs are also used to make gin so would the perfect bathtub make the perfect gin?

no, a distellery is to make gin. And they do not look like bathtubs.

If you are only using it for target shooting, why shouldn't it be locked up at the range?

Ah, because I do indeed have it for self defense. My point is that I COULD use it for that purpose, should the situation arise. I hope it never does, though.

I will not allow myself to be defenseless because someone is scared of what I MIGHT do, as opposed to what I WILL do.

Punishment before the crime is illegal.

no, a distellery is to make gin. And they do not look like bathtubs.
Pssstt they WERE used to make gin (look up prohibition and bathtub gin this may give you a starting point) they were used as a part of what essentially was a moonshine still (this is why it was a JOKE)

Ah, because I do indeed have it for self defense. My point is that I COULD use it for that purpose, should the situation arise. I hope it never does, though.

I will not allow myself to be defenseless because someone is scared of what I MIGHT do, as opposed to what I WILL do.

Punishment before the crime is illegal.


Then you DO have it with the intention being to kill or maim.

I'm not saying they weren't brave. I was saying they were ineffective. Had any of those teachers been allowed to be armed, those kids wouldn't have been able to kill so many and the incident would have been over much quicker.

I said ineffective educators--doesn't always mean teachers (school boards, principals, superintendents, etc.) There are those that tie the hands of teachers as well.

Case in point: Teachers can't discipline kids in school anymore.


We both seem to be seeing the middle ground: the teachers, security and administration in littleton, co were hard working and concerned educators. Having weapons did not help as was seen in the event when the campus officer engaged in a firefight with the two boys. He discharged a full clip but they were in too good of cover. The weapon did nothing.

I respect your view that Teachers hands are tied, I have personal experience saying they are, but giving a teacher a weapon would solve absolutely nothing.

Pssstt they WERE used to make gin (look up prohibition and bathtub gin this may give you a starting point) they were used as a part of what essentially was a moonshine still (this is why it was a JOKE)

I know they were/are used to make gin, but that is not their designed purpose. If you want to make gin the most effective way is to use a distillery (unless you need that wholesome bathtub flavour)

Then you DO have it with the intention being to kill or maim.
You originally said PEOPLE you could own a hunting rifle with the express purpose of hunting (killing or maiming animals)

You originally said PEOPLE you could own a hunting rifle with the express purpose of hunting (killing or maiming animals)

Your defence argument rests on the assumption you are willing to kill/maim another human being.

And I think killing/maiming animals is wrong as well.

I know they were/are used to make gin, but that is not their designed purpose. If you want to make gin the most effective way is to use a distillery (unless you need that wholesome bathtub flavour)
But that is an alternate purpose the tub origionated as a watter container not nessisarily having anything to do with baithing as well

The purpose of something is really determined by its uses beyond what the origional intent was

Your defence argument rests on the assumption you are willing to kill/maim another human being.

And I think killing/maiming animals is wrong as well.
That’s fine but really makes your statement incorrect … the sole purpose of a gun is not ALWAYS to kill and hurt PEOPLE

That’s fine but really makes your statement incorrect … the sole purpose of a gun is not ALWAYS to kill and hurt PEOPLE


Any gun that isn't a hunting rifle - ie pistols, saw offs, pump action, machine guns, grenade launchers, massive clips...

Cars are to get from place to place. A perfect car would become a teleporter and therefore hurt no-one.

Bath-tubs are to wash oneself. A perfect bath tub would also be safe.

Guns are to kill and maim. That is their purpose. A perfect gun would still kill and maim people.

You're pointing out what things do perfectly. The world ain't so. All of these things kill people, therefore negating the very idea that guns are made to kill people and the others are.

For example, my guns kill deer. My car has killed 3 deer. Hmm.

You're pointing out what things do perfectly. The world ain't so. All of these things kill people, therefore negating the very idea that guns are made to kill people and the others are.

For example, my guns kill deer. My car has killed 3 deer. Hmm.

no, your gun is made to kill deer. Cars are not. The purpose of guns is inherently a violent one.

Any gun that isn't a hunting rifle - ie pistols, saw offs, pump action, machine guns, grenade launchers, massive clips...
Not specified in your post you made a blanket statement about not only all guns but the purpose of the device

And if you want to be specific the purpose can be boiled down to the effect (I.E. the purpose of a rifle is to shoot a high velocity round precisely you are projecting user intent on top of the action of the device)

Just like a tub the real purpose of a tub is to hold liquid (or a solid if so specified) people just assume the intent is to bathe

If you are only using it for target shooting, why shouldn't it be locked up at the range?

If you only drive 40 miles a week, why have a 14 gallon gas tank?

no, your gun is made to kill deer. Cars are not. The purpose of guns is inherently a violent one.
Nope the purpose of a gun is to shoot a high velocity round at the user's digression it is the user who decides if that is a target or a dear or a person

But, but, but....it's so much EASIER to blame the firearms than society, or parenting, or ineffective educators!!!! We can't have you logical types showing how wrong the media and the sheeple are! Go away!!!

It's amazing how someone can be so scared of an inanimate object, no? :confused:


The world is devolving into two camps. One camp believes that inanimate objects cause people to do bad things, and that if only those inanimate objects ceased to exist, bad things would happen less frequently. Let's call this camp the "guns are evil" camp. They even believe that you can reach a state where bad things never happen, because there are no inanimate objects.

The other camp believes that individuals, not inanimate objects, are responsible for bad things, and that if only those irresponsible people were held responsible (the kids, the damned parents), that bad things would happen less frequently. Let's call this the "only people make you cry" camp. They don't believe that you can ever reach a state where no bad things ever happen, because people have free will and can invent or manufacture any inanimate object given the time and perseverance.

The problem with the "guns are evil" camp is that there are a lot more inanimate objects other than guns. I can go to the hardware store, and for less than 20 dollars, buy two common chemicals in sufficient quantity to kill as many people as may be in a confined space such as a shopping mall or high rise office building - all without showing any ID, all without risk to myself, and all perfectly legal. Nothing short of a space suit would save the lives of anyone in such a building. Anyone who has had a single semester of basic chemistry knows of such reactions, and need not prowl the Internet or obscure books for the information.

Such a massacre would make Dunblaine or Columbine look like the work of amateur simpletons.

Are you really going to be able to restrict ALL inanimate objects, or would it be a better use of time and resources to find out who the crazy people are in this world and put them under treatment before they do something bad?

Not specified in your post you made a blanket statement about not only all guns but the purpose of the device

And if you want to be specific the purpose can be boiled down to the effect (I.E. the purpose of a rifle is to shoot a high velocity round precisely you are projecting user intent on top of the action of the device)

Just like a tub the real purpose of a tub is to hold liquid (or a solid if so specified) people just assume the intent is to bathe

A bath tub is to hold liquid to allow people to bathe. Otherwise it could be a different shape (like 4 foot deep and 1 foot wide).

A gun is designed to kill or maim. A secondary use is target shooting. There is no other purpose for a gun.

no, your gun is made to kill deer. Cars are not. The purpose of guns is inherently a violent one.

No... the gun is made to fire a projectile. If I aim it at a deer or at a paper target, it's still doing what it is made for.

The car is moving (it's job) and killing deer (not it's job).

So far, the car is not only more violent than the gun (2 deer vs. 3), but as the car isn't doing it's job, it's less trustworthy.

A bath tub is to hold liquid to allow people to bathe. Otherwise it could be a different shape (like 4 foot deep and 1 foot wide).

A gun is designed to kill or maim. A secondary use is target shooting. There is no other purpose for a gun.

I guess that having a woman defend herself against being killed by an abusive man is not a valid purpose for you.

snip

Again, a gun is designed to kill and maim. Like a combat knife or sword it is not designed for any other purpose. Those chemicals you mentioned have another, morally legitimate use.

Guns are made to cause harm. Why allow people to own them in a civilised society?

A bath tub is to hold liquid to allow people to bathe. Otherwise it could be a different shape (like 4 foot deep and 1 foot wide).

A gun is designed to kill or maim. A secondary use is target shooting. There is no other purpose for a gun.
In my world the target shooting is the primary killing and maiming is a secondary (my intended use)
The guns purpose is still as always to shoot a projectile at what I choose THAT is its purpose nothing more

I guess that having a woman defend herself against being killed by an abusive man is not a valid purpose for you.

No, anyone deliberately arming themselves to kill or maim someone else is immoral in my book.

By all means defend yourself with kitchen knives or chairs or sticks. But I don't see why we should encourage people to prepare to kill someone else in a civilised society. If it is certain the man will attack her, then she can move or get extra locks. She does not need to prepare to murder someone.

In my world the target shooting is the primary killing and maiming is a secondary (my intended use)
The guns purpose is still as always to shoot a projectile at what I choose THAT is its purpose nothing more

If the purpose is only target shooting, it can stay at the range. If it is taken out of the range the only purpose you have it for is to kill or maim.

No, anyone deliberately arming themselves to kill or maim someone else is immoral in my book.

By all means defend yourself with kitchen knives or chairs or sticks. But I don't see why we should encourage people to prepare to kill someone else in a civilised society. If it is certain the man will attack her, then she can move or get extra locks. She does not need to prepare to murder someone.
1 in 4 is the curren statistics and puting locks on your door has NO effect if they catch you outside your home

(though personaly I am a proponent of tazers and mace but yeah)

If the purpose is only target shooting, it can stay at the range. If it is taken out of the range the only purpose you have it for is to kill or maim.
I live on a farm my home is my range (not to mention protection from the ocasional wolves)

Again, a gun is designed to kill and maim. Like a combat knife or sword it is not designed for any other purpose. Those chemicals you mentioned have another, morally legitimate use.

Guns are made to cause harm. Why allow people to own them in a civilised society?

So a woman won't end up being beaten to death. I've trained nearly a hundred women now who were prior victims of wife beating and stalking. None of them were ever attacked again.

No woman's shelter in our area can make the same claim. Women who leave their abusive men are at an extremely high risk of death - mostly by beating or strangulation. Getting a protective order doubles the risk of death - unless they arm themselves.

Which would you rather have, a dead beaten woman whose only offense was to leave an abusive situation, or a woman who can live in safety because the asshat is too scared to confront her now?

So a woman won't end up being beaten to death. I've trained nearly a hundred women now who were prior victims of wife beating and stalking. None of them were ever attacked again.

No woman's shelter in our area can make the same claim. Women who leave their abusive men are at an extremely high risk of death - mostly by beating or strangulation. Getting a protective order doubles the risk of death - unless they arm themselves.

Which would you rather have, a dead beaten woman whose only offense was to leave an abusive situation, or a woman who can live in safety because the asshat is too scared to confront her now?

Well the rest of the world seems to be able to protect women from abusive men without resorting to training them to murder people. As someone else mentioned, why not mace/tasers/rubber bullets?

Well of course, education's to blame. How did we miss that?


Speaking of Columbine, has anyone else noticed how little coverage has been given to the mass killing a few weeks ago at that Minnesota Reservation school. Now why is that? It couldn't perhaps be because it was 'only' Native Americans who were killed, perhaps? A minority that the US media isn't too interested in.

Nah, it's because someone figured out after Columbine that Harris and Klebold were imitating two previous school-shootings (One in Oregon, the other in what, North Carolina? something like that, anyway...) and media coverage just generates copycats.

Harris and Klebold were both on ADD/ADHD medications, they were both fascinated by Nazi symbolism.
They were both allowed to soak their free-time playing FPS type games while on what amounts to semihypnotic drugs.

They were both allegedly parented by good, upper-middle-class-Liberal-Democrat parents.

Neither Klebold nor Harris obtained their firearms legally.

A more effective method might be to tell the School districts to stop deferring and ducking responsibility with ZT policies and Chemical Riot Control. Lots of kids get prescribed who have no real medical problems other than being bored. Kids have been bullied forever, it's only the last twenty years of "Enlightened" education that we've had them coming to school to empty magazines into their peers.
When I was in High-School, we didn't even need metal detectors (this wasn't all that long ago) much less Security Police patrolling the hallways.

The parents in this case share more than a small amount of the blame-if your kid has a shrine to Uncle Adolph in the garage, and you don't notice, you've got a serious fucking problem. You also have an SFP if you think tossing prescription drugs down your little-darling's throat to make him behave is even remotely tied to the task of raising a responsible and productive citizen to adulthood.

So a woman won't end up being beaten to death. I've trained nearly a hundred women now who were prior victims of wife beating and stalking. None of them were ever attacked again.

No woman's shelter in our area can make the same claim. Women who leave their abusive men are at an extremely high risk of death - mostly by beating or strangulation. Getting a protective order doubles the risk of death - unless they arm themselves.

Which would you rather have, a dead beaten woman whose only offense was to leave an abusive situation, or a woman who can live in safety because the asshat is too scared to confront her now?
I also taught a self defense course( non weapon) it was part of our dojos community effort back in the day

Nah, it's because someone figured out after Columbine that Harris and Klebold were imitating two previous school-shootings (One in Oregon, the other in what, North Carolina? something like that, anyway...) and media coverage just generates copycats.

Harris and Klebold were both on ADD/ADHD medications, they were both fascinated by Nazi symbolism.
They were both allowed to soak their free-time playing FPS type games while on what amounts to semihypnotic drugs.

They were both allegedly parented by good, upper-middle-class-Liberal-Democrat parents.

Neither Klebold nor Harris obtained their firearms legally.

A more effective method might be to tell the School districts to stop deferring and ducking responsibility with ZT policies and Chemical Riot Control. Lots of kids get prescribed who have no real medical problems other than being bored. Kids have been bullied forever, it's only the last twenty years of "Enlightened" education that we've had them coming to school to empty magazines into their peers.
When I was in High-School, we didn't even need metal detectors (this wasn't all that long ago) much less Security Police patrolling the hallways.

The parents in this case share more than a small amount of the blame-if your kid has a shrine to Uncle Adolph in the garage, and you don't notice, you've got a serious fucking problem. You also have an SFP if you think tossing prescription drugs down your little-darling's throat to make him behave is even remotely tied to the task of raising a responsible and productive citizen to adulthood.

Wait, do you guys have metal detectors at your schools?!?

Well the rest of the world seems to be able to protect women from abusive men without resorting to training them to murder people. As someone else mentioned, why not mace/tasers/rubber bullets?

If you knew anything about domestic violence, you would know that "the rest of the world" isn't any better about stopping wife beating or stalking than any other country.

There's quite a few studies on the problem in the US and UK.

Mace and pepper spray don't work. They are temporary at best, and if they fail to work (pepper spray does not affect me, for instance), they serve only to enrage the attacker.

Tasers for civilian use are nowhere near as effective as the police models. They are also only one shot, and have a range of less than 18 feet. If you miss, you're going to get beaten.

Guns have a psychological effect that no other weapon has. The program that I run for women is stark evidence of that. None of the women has had to shoot anyone - but the men know that the women can well defend themselves - no matter how many shots it takes. The men stay away.

By the normal statistics, there should be twenty women in my group that should have died at the hands of their ex-husband by now. None of them have been so much as threatened since they started to carry guns.

No, anyone deliberately arming themselves to kill or maim someone else is immoral in my book.

By all means defend yourself with kitchen knives or chairs or sticks. But I don't see why we should encourage people to prepare to kill someone else in a civilised society. If it is certain the man will attack her, then she can move or get extra locks. She does not need to prepare to murder someone.

You seem to favor older technology, is all. You're fine with knives and clubs, but not fine with guns? Bizarre.

By your logic, you'll be fine with guns as soon as the non-propellent weapons come out. (BTW: there is an EXCELLENT chance that it'll be in the next 50 years.)

You seem to favor older technology, is all. You're fine with knives and clubs, but not fine with guns? Bizarre.

By your logic, you'll be fine with guns as soon as the non-propellent weapons come out. (BTW: there is an EXCELLENT chance that it'll be in the next 50 years.)

No, I am fine with opportunistic means of defence. I am appalled by carefully premeditated murder, which carrying a gun effectively is.

No, I am fine with opportunistic means of defence. I am appalled by carefully premeditated murder, which carrying a gun effectively is.
Its not murder if it is legal (self defense

No, I am fine with opportunistic means of defence. I am appalled by carefully premeditated murder, which carrying a gun effectively is.

Self-defense is not murder.

If a man seeks to beat and kill his wife, and she ends up shooting him with a pistol she carries for the purposes of self-defense, and the court has already held in a protective order that he poses an immediate threat to her life, it's not murder.

It's not murder. Would you rather that she die?

Well the rest of the world seems to be able to protect women from abusive men without resorting to training them to murder people. As someone else mentioned, why not mace/tasers/rubber bullets?

Mace/taser/rb: He's out before the cops have finished the paperwork, and he just gets sneaky and disables her before commencing to beat/strangle her to death.

Why are you concerned with preserving the life of a beater anyway?Those types are scum-they deserve to die. wifebeaters are cowards and sadists with a vengeful streak, they're in the same general category as Rapists and molesters-they won't ever 'get better' and the species stands considerable improvement by their removal. Among other things, putting a bullet in bastard's head means he won't be victimizing someone else.

Wait, do you guys have metal detectors at your schools?!? Two blocks from where I live, the Everett High School has both Metal Detectors, and armed police present. EVERY DAY.

Two blocks from where I live, the Everett High School has both Metal Detectors, and armed police present. EVERY DAY.

Your country is so boned.

Mace/taser/rb: He's out before the cops have finished the paperwork, and he just gets sneaky and disables her before commencing to beat/strangle her to death.

Why are you concerned with preserving the life of a beater anyway?Those types are scum-they deserve to die. wifebeaters are cowards and sadists with a vengeful streak, they're in the same general category as Rapists and molesters-they won't ever 'get better' and the species stands considerable improvement by their removal. Among other things, putting a bullet in bastard's head means he won't be victimizing someone else.

I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime.

Your country is so boned.
Around here, it depends on the high school.

Generally speaking, the darker the school population, the more likely you are to have metal detectors and armed police. South Lakes High School, for instance, is about as tight as the airport now.

Other high schools have NO security at all.

Your country is so boned.
Why for trying to keep kids safe while still allowing maximum freedom … yeah such a bad thing :rolleyes:

Self-defense is not murder.

If a man seeks to beat and kill his wife, and she ends up shooting him with a pistol she carries for the purposes of self-defense, and the court has already held in a protective order that he poses an immediate threat to her life, it's not murder.

It's not murder. Would you rather that she die?

Having a system where women are trained to kill, and equipped specifically to do so sounds totally barbaric to me.

I would suggest a civilised society look at alternative means, such as protected accomodation and relocation, as well as mandatory anger management for spouse abusers. If they're being held under protective order, they ought to treated to try and reduce their violent nature. It's not just the women they are a threat to. If they can't be helped, then they should be imprisoned until they pose no threat.

Why for trying to keep kids safe while still allowing maximum freedom … yeah such a bad thing :rolleyes:

No, for needing metal detectors. It's unheard of here.

No, for needing metal detectors. It's unheard of here.
Other rights are restricted to change the need … you choose to not need them at the cost of other freedoms everything is a tradeoff of some sort

Having a system where women are trained to kill, and equipped specifically to do so sounds totally barbaric to me.

I would suggest a civilised society look at alternative means, such as protected accomodation and relocation, as well as mandatory anger management for spouse abusers. If they're being held under protective order, they ought to treated to try and reduce their violent nature. It's not just the women they are a threat to. If they can't be helped, then they should be imprisoned until they pose no threat.

There is mandatory anger management. It NEVER works. It only serves to enrage and stimulate the offender if he is a wife beater or stalker.

Women ARE relocated - and stalkers ALWAYS find them again. Women change their names, jobs, social security numbers - and they are found again and again.

Under a protective order, no one is "held".

Why should the woman give up her home, her life, her job, her name, her identity, her extended family, her friends - just because some guy is a violent shitstorm?

I don't believe in the death penalty for any crime.

Well... that's a lovely and very Christian sentiment. It won't save the life of a beater's victim (or prevent him from doing it to some other young lady), but it's a lovely sentiment.

I would disagree, however. As Legs pointed out, why should the victim be forced to dismantle the rest of her life to preserve the existence of an abusive scumbag? Society should not be forced to cater the needs of those who mistreat its most vulnerable members-in fact, I believe the main purpose of society is to protect women and children from abusive bags of shit too cowardly to fight someone who is their physical equal.

further, I believe it better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six. (In U.S. tradition, there are six pallbearers, and twelve Jurors.)

Guns make even a small woman the equal of a large man-unlike clubs, or swords, a gun requires no great amount of physical fitness/raw strength to use effectively-they even work when the user is injured, unlike knives, and they don't require that she let him get within killing distance with his hands to use.

I believe (with all I possess capable of believing) that it is a basic human right to defend yourself and your children against a two-legged predator intent on doing harm. Lethal Force in that situation is, I believe, included within that basic human right. Permitting a violent scumbag to do his violence (regardless of protective orders) is beyond irresponsible-it's anti-human. Even if we gave them a blank cheque, the Police and Law-enforcement community can-not protect everyone that needs protection from violent assholes.

No, I am fine with opportunistic means of defence. I am appalled by carefully premeditated murder, which carrying a gun effectively is.

That's absurd.
By your logic, someone RIGHT NOW whom is driving is comitting premeditated murder, because they're going to hit and kill someone in an hour. :rolleyes:

Then you DO have it with the intention being to kill or maim.

Nope. I have it with the intention of stopping. Not killing, not maiming. If they happen to get killed or maimed, I'm not going to feel too sorry, since they attacked me or invaded my home.

We both seem to be seeing the middle ground: the teachers, security and administration in littleton, co were hard working and concerned educators. Having weapons did not help as was seen in the event when the campus officer engaged in a firefight with the two boys. He discharged a full clip but they were in too good of cover. The weapon did nothing.

I respect your view that Teachers hands are tied, I have personal experience saying they are, but giving a teacher a weapon would solve absolutely nothing.

I'll choose to disagree with you. What kind of cover were the kids under? It'd have to be something fairly significant, as most pistol rounds go through wooden walls, tables, etc.

Maybe if more of the teachers were armed they could have out-flanked the kids.

A bath tub is to hold liquid to allow people to bathe. Otherwise it could be a different shape (like 4 foot deep and 1 foot wide).

A gun is designed to kill or maim. A secondary use is target shooting. There is no other purpose for a gun.

Fine, to use your example:

A gun was invented to thrown a chunk of metal or stone (or several of said items) in a particular direction. If a person decides to point that at someone, yes, great physical trauma can ensue.

There are SO many more reports of people SHOWING a gun (not firing it) and stopping a crime. Sounds not-so-violent to me. No killing, no maiming, no target shooting even.

Again, a gun is designed to kill and maim. Like a combat knife or sword it is not designed for any other purpose. Those chemicals you mentioned have another, morally legitimate use.

Guns are made to cause harm. Why allow people to own them in a civilised society?

Because the world has proven that there is no such animal as a civilized society. There will always be violence and there will always be crime. Those who think utopia is possible are fooling themselves.

I can't believe that people are going on and on about gun laws and guns. None of this wouldn't have happened if most of these kids wouldn't have been bullied. I know exactly how they feel, I was treated very badly in school, but we didn't do that shit back in my day.

Crack down on the bullies and the cliques, then maybe we'll see a change. Children are so mean these days, and some kids just can't find a way to deal with it.

Well the rest of the world seems to be able to protect women from abusive men without resorting to training them to murder people. As someone else mentioned, why not mace/tasers/rubber bullets?

The UK had over 11,000 rapes last year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074845.stm

No, other countries can't do it either, even with restrictive laws.

No, I am fine with opportunistic means of defence. I am appalled by carefully premeditated murder, which carrying a gun effectively is.

No, that's what YOU are classifying it as.

The way you are classifying firearms, carrying any weapon should be at least pre-meditated assault of some sort. A knife would be murder. Pepper spray is assault.

You're applying a double-standard.

I can't believe that people are going on and on about gun laws and guns. None of this wouldn't have happened if most of these kids wouldn't have been bullied. I know exactly how they feel, I was treated very badly in school, but we didn't do that shit back in my day.

Crack down on the bullies and the cliques, then maybe we'll see a change. Children are so mean these days, and some kids just can't find a way to deal with it.

Children have always been mean to others. Yeah, crack down on the bullying, but also crack down on the parenting.

I can't believe that people are going on and on about gun laws and guns. None of this wouldn't have happened if most of these kids wouldn't have been bullied. I know exactly how they feel, I was treated very badly in school, but we didn't do that shit back in my day.

Crack down on the bullies and the cliques, then maybe we'll see a change. Children are so mean these days, and some kids just can't find a way to deal with it.

Kids have been bullied for like, ever. It's only in the recent couple decades that we've had massacres-and that's with automatic weapons existing (With high-cap magazines) for more than a century now.

My father used to keep his shotgun in his locker at school during hunting-season, (this would be the 1950's), and there were bullies then, too.
And Cliques.
And Crime.

so... what's changed? Well... in the 1950's, most Teachers were well-educated, among the tops of their classes in College, and female. School Administrators still sent their own kids to the schools they administered-not private schools, but the schools where they themselves taught or worked.
Not even the 'black' schools had violence problems, because the adults took the responsibility to actually supervise and Parent their little hellspawn, instead of trying to pass that responsibility off on someone else.

Kids were taught that things had consequences. this does not apply in many places today. Today, we have "Zero Tolerance" policies instead of rational judgement (this makes the authorities look foolish, which isn't something you want to be in the eyes of adolescents...), Schools are 'babysitting' services instead of Educational institutions, and aren't allowed to provide immediate punishment for minor infractions (instead, kids are given days-off they won't have to make up), Teachers have no authority, and take no responsibility, and we have schools trying to apply pharmaceutical solutions to what are, at base, disciplinary problems...and parents who not only go along with this, but by-threat-of-lawsuit, push this issue in this direction... then bitch when it backfires and a bunch of their little darlings are gunned down by unparented, drug-soaked, self-absorbed little sociopaths (with outstanding self-esteem.)

I wonder if some people here have considered some other countries before singing firearms praises.

The USA has a much higher murder rate PER 1000 population than most other European and developed countries.

www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Is this because of guns? Has the USA realised The War of Independance is over yet? Or is a musket still as vital to you as it always was

Understand guys.Theres no enemy anymore!You dont need weapons to defend yourselves against each other..... if no one else had weapons.

We in Europe seem to manage fine without them, I never seem to feel insecure without my trusty AK or RPG.

well i think my 2 cents are needed while i dodge studying for finals...

I personally dislike firearms, but believe they do have some purpose in modern society. Yes, they do offer a source of protection to those unable to defend themselves, but i have to agree with Enlightened Humanity as well.

Guns, swords, and the ilk were ORIGNALLY meant for injury upon others (last time i remember, guns were used for military advantage). Why do people engage in shooting ranges? Either out of sport or improvement of skill. This skill could either derive from sport or meaning to do harm to others if need be. I personal own a paintball gun and several swords. I use the paintball gun for sport and i use the swords for my own development and possible future education in the art of melee combat. I just see guns as a combat equalizer, it can cut down anyone, regardless of strength. I'd much rather see a society where everyone knows unarmed combat and be able to defend themselves.

OK enough about me, let's get to the whole defense issue that you have been putting forward. You guys seem to state answers to questions you each put forth, but you don't seem to understand from where they derive. Yes, a man who willingly injures a woman is deserving of justice, but you have to ask the question "why does he do it?". perhaps he grew up in a bad family with a bad father figure. Perhaps he has anger management issues, which there are classes for. yes it may not work, but there can be other behavioral modification methods to curb it. So the problem of battery can be resolved to pre-emption via development. I do not have the time to spend on this so i must be going back to studying...

As for Columbine. It was regrettable, but everyone is at fault here: Parents (not being involved with their kids), teachers (failing to stop or reprimand the kids for bullying), the shooters (unable to handle their problems in a civil way), the bullies (for everything bullies do), the media, politics, law, and society.

If history is indeed the study of repetition, what have we learned?

I wonder if some people here have considered some other countries before singing firearms praises.

The USA has a much higher murder rate PER 1000 population than most other European and developed countries.

www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Is this because of guns? Has the USA realised The War of Independance is over yet? Or is a musket still as vital to you as it always was

Understand guys.Theres no enemy anymore!You dont need weapons to defend yourselves against each other..... if no one else had weapons.

We in Europe seem to manage fine without them, I never seem to feel insecure without my trusty AK or RPG.


Well... that's very nice for Europe. but I have a question on this way-off-topic subject you just raised. IF you feel so secure, why are you even bothering to think about what Americans are doing in America? Could it be that Europeans can afford their system mainly because they sent the lunatics, and violent people, to America??? The entire time Europe dominated the Globe, they sent their malcontents here, whether religious minorities, ethnic minorities, 'weird' aligned political activists, or 'spare' peasants, wave after wave of Europe's unwanted came to the United States. Now, Europe can afford to disarm it's citizens, because the elements that would object, are gone. Gone where? the United States!
One might also note that the Great Powers of the 19th Century are now less-prominent and (with the exception of Britain) less-successful militarily than the mongrel-nation made up of their castoffs.
Nobody is telling French, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Brits, Norse, Swedes, Danes, or Nederlanders that they should have free-access to firearms like the United States citizens do-we're just objecting to emulating your particular choices in that direction. Our ancestors Departed Europe, we don't necessarily (outside Europhile areas in select large cities) want to BE europe.

For the Anti-gunners in this thread,

I have found a list of the weapons that these kids had

Weapons identified in the Columbine High shooting

—One TEC DC 9, modified, semi-automatic pistol

—One sawed-off double-barrel shotgun

—One sawed off pump action shotgun

—One 9 mm semi-automatic rifle

—More than 30 homemade explosives, including pipe bombs, crude hand grenades and a propane tank (similar to those used on gas barbecue grills) with explosives attached.

First off, the shotguns were illegally obtained due to being sawed off stock/barrels. These two were illegal due to a lack of a class III lisence.

The tec DC-9 was banned durring the Assult Weapons Ban that went into effect in 1994. It was still in effect durring the time of this shooting.

I am not sure about the 9mm Semi-auto rifle... I could not get enough details on it.

As far as the bombs go.... it is amazing what one can do with simple household items.

My point is, 3/4 of those guns were illegal to the general populace to begin with. The 9mm would have been hard as one has to be 21 to buy 9mm ammo.

Damn the media for having everyone beleave that all the weapons used were AK's and other legal rifles.

On another point, it was a clear cut case of bad parenting and folks saying the wrong things to the wrong people.


I understand the point you are trying to make..
But do we know where these guns came from. Werent all these weapons from the parents gun collection.

The point Id like to make here is that many of those "Law Abiding citizens" who dont necessarily agree with gun bans or legislation.. who have that hidden stash of these guns.. because they wont allow the government to keep them from thier guns.

These are the some of the same "law abiding citizens" we are talking about when we argue about whether there should be any gun legislation at all.

dont misquote me.. im not saying every gun owning citizen flagrantly breaks the law in this way.. but its becoming more and more apparent every time there is a break in and gun are stolen from "law abiding citizens" and used to commit crimes.

I say we quit bickering and blame heavy metal and Marilyn Manson.
:D

i think perhaps one of tha saddest things about tha Columbine shootings is that they happenes on a day a lot of people won't remember.

*cough*4/20*cough*



"Rock tha 40 oz!"

What was the first murder reported?

Cain killed Abel when Abel wasn't paying attention.

How did he do it?

With a big, simple, inanimate object (not a gun).

Why did he do it?

His parents paid more attention to his brother (nowadays that would be stuff that they cared about: work, money, pleasure).



Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

No, anyone deliberately arming themselves to kill or maim someone else is immoral in my book.

By all means defend yourself with kitchen knives or chairs or sticks. But I don't see why we should encourage people to prepare to kill someone else in a civilised society. If it is certain the man will attack her, then she can move or get extra locks. She does not need to prepare to murder someone.



That really will do wonders if you're jumped walking by a dark alley or attacked in the parking lot late at night (locks on your doors that is). I'll shout at the gang attacking me, "Wait, wait! you can't do this! I have a chair nearby in my house, ready at hand! I moved just month, and my house has locks!"

Get real...

Again, a gun is designed to kill and maim. Like a combat knife or sword it is not designed for any other purpose. Those chemicals you mentioned have another, morally legitimate use.

Guns are made to cause harm. Why allow people to own them in a civilised society?


In a civilized society, the right to be secure in persons, property, and the peace of mind that comes from this security, is first and foremost fundamental right. Without this peace of mind, you have nothing.


If you're a prisoner in your home you have nothing.

Guns are peace of mind.

God made man, Sam Colt made them equal. :D

Well the rest of the world seems to be able to protect women from abusive men without resorting to training them to murder people. As someone else mentioned, why not mace/tasers/rubber bullets?


How about you "pro-choice" types allow folks the choice if they want a gun or not? It's about choice. I have a multitude of self-defense weapons, depending on the level of aggression of a possible attacker and the situation, I will use whichever one will work best.

Mace won't work when the wind is strong and will just blow it back in my face. A tazer won't work when there are 5 of them surrounding me. Rubber bullets won't work when the man is all coked up from snorting the white stuff for hours on end before trying to rob me. Anyway, rubber bullets CAN and DO often kill or maim. There is no such thing as "Non-lethal" weapon, the term is misleading. Most police and military prefer the term, "Less-than-lethal" since it is supposed to be less than lethal, but still can be lethal if not used properly.

The amount of training and skill required to properly employ most non-lethal weaponry (Except for a basic tazor or mace, which are not always reliable) is such that most civilians couldn't get it. Rubber bullets require skill, they are NOT accurate. They are anti-crowd weapons, designed to be fired into large crowds, since they are rubber and not a real bullet, they don't have the accuracy real bullets have.

I'm with blaming the parents but the Brown family went to the police twice and nothing was done. Jeffco cops suck anyway, they never found the murderer that shot a guy up the road from me.

I have a better idea. Make contraceptive implants for men and women mandatory. Then have a licensing process for people who wish to reproduce.

No reproduction without a license. The application procedure should be at least as stringent as the application for adopting a child.

You would have a higher percentage of people who took parenting seriously.

The parents in the Columbine case were completely unaware that their sons had guns. One had a shotgun laying in plain sight on top of his dresser in his bedroom - for weeks. Their idea of "dealing with" their child's problems was to send them to a psychiatrist and give them Prozac. They had no idea about the bullying. So obviously, the parents had no idea what was going on with their own children.

We're lucky the kids didn't do something far worse.
Hmmmm looking to play God again?

All this coming from a guy who would gleefully hand out guns without a required waiting period. Perhaps you would be against background checks as well?

Well... that's a lovely and very Christian sentiment. It won't save the life of a beater's victim (or prevent him from doing it to some other young lady), but it's a lovely sentiment.

I would disagree, however. As Legs pointed out, why should the victim be forced to dismantle the rest of her life to preserve the existence of an abusive scumbag? Society should not be forced to cater the needs of those who mistreat its most vulnerable members-in fact, I believe the main purpose of society is to protect women and children from abusive bags of shit too cowardly to fight someone who is their physical equal.

further, I believe it better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six. (In U.S. tradition, there are six pallbearers, and twelve Jurors.)

Guns make even a small woman the equal of a large man-unlike clubs, or swords, a gun requires no great amount of physical fitness/raw strength to use effectively-they even work when the user is injured, unlike knives, and they don't require that she let him get within killing distance with his hands to use.

I believe (with all I possess capable of believing) that it is a basic human right to defend yourself and your children against a two-legged predator intent on doing harm. Lethal Force in that situation is, I believe, included within that basic human right. Permitting a violent scumbag to do his violence (regardless of protective orders) is beyond irresponsible-it's anti-human. Even if we gave them a blank cheque, the Police and Law-enforcement community can-not protect everyone that needs protection from violent assholes.



Enlightened Humanity is clearly one of those who likes to coddle criminals. I prefer to throw the book at criminals, he wants to blame society, blame guns, blame anybody but the criminals themselves, for what the criminals are doing. He'd pat a bad dog on the head and let it loose to go maul somebody else, just to avoid having to admit maybe the dog needs to be in a cage or even worse (gasp...) put down...

Maybe we should have some education for the bullies, then maybe this type of thing wouldn't happen so often.

aggression/lack of empathy cannot be "educated" out of sociopaths. these are natural-born criminals.

most of us care at least enough about others to not beat them up/kill them for no reason.

To a sociopath, however, his brain is wired such that the only thing that matters is his personal gratification. The world is his playground and other people are his action figures with whom to play.

The disease is known as Antisocial Personality Disorder (at least it was in my Processes of Deviant Behavior class 6 years ago. hehe).

I'll choose to disagree with you. What kind of cover were the kids under? It'd have to be something fairly significant, as most pistol rounds go through wooden walls, tables, etc.

Maybe if more of the teachers were armed they could have out-flanked the kids.


The police officer was out-ranged by the Hipoint 9mm rifle that one of the shooters had. The officer was at least 100-200 meters away when he fired with his 9mm pistol, and he was totally outranged by the 9mm rifle which has a longer barrel and better reach than the pistol.

The UK had over 11,000 rapes last year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3074845.stm

No, other countries can't do it either, even with restrictive laws.


Actually the number was closer to 200,000. Depends which statistics you go by. I go by "Victimization" reports (the amount of reported crime) rather than "conviction" reports, since many plea bargains are reached, many charges dropped, and many witnesses "disappear" before appearing in court.

England is NOTORIOUS for deflating their crime rate by writing off as 1 burglarly, the robbing of an entire apartment complex or small development. Say 10-20 flats are robbed, they write it off as 1 crime since it took place in the same building.

Furthermore, they only officially record it as a crime if the person is convicted.

A raped woman is still a raped woman whether or not the rapist winds up in jail. A dead man is still a dead man whether or not his killer got convicted.

Hmmmm looking to play God again?

All this coming from a guy who would gleefully hand out guns without a required waiting period. Perhaps you would be against background checks as well?


I am against background checks, I've already explained why, it's de facto registration. When they call it in (and this scandal was blown wide open, the ATF claims they don't do it anymore, but who trusts them?), well when the dealer calls the check in to the ATF/FBI whoever it is, it turned out the ATF was writing down exactly what they were being told, rather than just looking it up and then not keeping records, they had long lists with names, and everytime they did a check they made a mark next to the name (each mark = one gun they know the person ought to have). It was basically a registration list.

Hmmmm looking to play God again?

All this coming from a guy who would gleefully hand out guns without a required waiting period. Perhaps you would be against background checks as well?

If you're going to say that people are naturally irresponsible, and must always be supervised by the nanny state, I'm surprised that you didn't come up with the idea of licensing reproduction. After all, it's the next logical step in your total control freak government.

The police officer was out-ranged by the Hipoint 9mm rifle that one of the shooters had. The officer was at least 100-200 meters away when he fired with his 9mm pistol, and he was totally outranged by the 9mm rifle which has a longer barrel and better reach than the pistol.

Hmm. Police officers generally have something longer-ranged in their squads. A high school had an officer? I've seen some police officers qualify with their sidearms--they've never really been all that impressive, though. And where the hell was the body armor? 9mm doesn't go through that.

Actually the number was closer to 200,000. Depends which statistics you go by. I go by "Victimization" reports (the amount of reported crime) rather than "conviction" reports, since many plea bargains are reached, many charges dropped, and many witnesses "disappear" before appearing in court.

England is NOTORIOUS for deflating their crime rate by writing off as 1 burglarly, the robbing of an entire apartment complex or small development. Say 10-20 flats are robbed, they write it off as 1 crime since it took place in the same building.

Furthermore, they only officially record it as a crime if the person is convicted.

A raped woman is still a raped woman whether or not the rapist winds up in jail. A dead man is still a dead man whether or not his killer got convicted.

Wow. That's really icky.

I am against background checks, I've already explained why, it's de facto registration. When they call it in (and this scandal was blown wide open, the ATF claims they don't do it anymore, but who trusts them?), well when the dealer calls the check in to the ATF/FBI whoever it is, it turned out the ATF was writing down exactly what they were being told, rather than just looking it up and then not keeping records, they had long lists with names, and everytime they did a check they made a mark next to the name (each mark = one gun they know the person ought to have). It was basically a registration list.

All paperwork from today's background checks must be destroyed in 24-48 hours, at least according to the guy who owns one of the ranges I frequent.

I've said it many times, I'll say it again:
* I believe that EVERY STATE should offer gun licenses, just like driver's licenses.
* I further believe that background checks are necessary.

That said, with these state licenses, one will be able to concealed carry anywhere in the US. Just because I cross the border into Massachusettes doesn't mean I suddenly forgot firearms safety.

Tiers will be assigned for types (pistols & revolvers, automatics, etc.) just as with driving motorcycles, HDL, tractor trailors, etc.

Local laws (ie: no license required for New Hampshire) can remain on the books for citizens OF that state WITHIN the state's borders.

I think that's probably the sanest and fairest compromise the US would ever see on guns.

Remember, this is for LEGAL gun ownership -- criminals don't take a safety course and get fingerprinted, now do they? :(

I am against background checks, I've already explained why, it's de facto registration. When they call it in (and this scandal was blown wide open, the ATF claims they don't do it anymore, but who trusts them?), well when the dealer calls the check in to the ATF/FBI whoever it is, it turned out the ATF was writing down exactly what they were being told, rather than just looking it up and then not keeping records, they had long lists with names, and everytime they did a check they made a mark next to the name (each mark = one gun they know the person ought to have). It was basically a registration list.
And so it should be. A registration that is, plus a waiting period, plus guns should be stored safely when not in use.

And so it should be. A registration that is, plus a waiting period, plus guns should be stored safely when not in use.

I agree! Just make sure you register EVERY OTHER good, and have a waiting period.

(CH drives up to the drive thru): "Yeah, I'd like a medium #5 with a coke".
Attendant: "That'll be $5.50 sir, please drive around."
Attendant: Please fill out this paperwork sir, and here's your change. You can have your meal next Thursday.

If you're going to say that people are naturally irresponsible, and must always be supervised by the nanny state, I'm surprised that you didn't come up with the idea of licensing reproduction. After all, it's the next logical step in your total control freak government.
Your argument is totally illogical. You would licence reproduction but hand out guns to some people who would probably fail your reproduction licence requirements.

Ummm I believe that it is your goverrnment that are control freaks? It is called the Patriot Act?

I agree! Just make sure you register EVERY OTHER good, and have a waiting period.

(CH drives up to the drive thru): "Yeah, I'd like a medium #5 with a coke".
Attendant: "That'll be $5.50 sir, please drive around."
Attendant: Please fill out this paperwork sir, and here's your change. You can have your meal next Thursday.
Although Mc Donald's food can be deadly, I don't see the point? Hard to kill someone with a loaded French fry? :eek:

Although Mc Donald's food can be deadly, I don't see the point? Hard to kill someone with a loaded French fry? :eek:

My point is that a gun, a car, or a happy meal may kill you. A good is a good is a good. If you put restrictions on guns, there should be restrictions on EVERYTHING. :(

PS- Absolutely. I try to stay far away from the stuff, though sometimes I give in and go to Taco Bell or Quiznos.

And so it should be. A registration that is, plus a waiting period, plus guns should be stored safely when not in use.


I remember a case where a woman was attacked by her ex-husband (against whom she had a restraining order) on day 29 of the 30 day waiting period, she was killed.

I did a report about waiting periods, and I mentioned that and the case of the woman who was attacked the day she had picked up her gun, just a matter of hours after, she shot her stalker dead...

There is your waiting period, in all its glory, enjoy, you're a murderer.

Note I don't mean you are a murderer, I mean you (Waiting period) is a murderer. I do that sometimes, talk to ideas and concepts like they were people.

Hard to kill someone with a loaded French fry? :eek:
That reminded me of this shirt:
http://img.hottopic.com/is/image/HotTopic/259394_hi?wid=199
:D

That reminded me of this shirt:
http://img.hottopic.com/is/image/HotTopic/259394_hi?wid=199
:D

On that note, Hot Topic sucks.

*runs*

Banning guns is clearly not the answer.

I'm going to purchase a gun when i'm old enough to defend myself and potential family. To make guns illegal doesn't mean all guns disappear. Not much seems to stop kids from obtaining illegally modified guns, yet you think making all guns illegal will stop criminals from getting them?

And no,the purpose of a gun is not to kill. The purpose of a gun is to expell a projectile at a high speed. A gun could easily serve the purpose of defense without hurting anyone. It's called intimidation.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Why hasn't that quote been sticking?

PS: Isn't the assault gun ban over now? If so, may God have mercy on our souls.

That reminded me of this shirt:
http://img.hottopic.com/is/image/HotTopic/259394_hi?wid=199
:D
Well there you go.....a lethal French fry....well not lethal but blinding? :eek:

PS: Isn't the assault gun ban over now? If so, may God have mercy on our souls.

Er, why? The ban was just about totally ineffectual!

http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/s=289/bcw1114742614210/

Expiration of the "assault weapons" ban in US made no change in crime rate
SOURCE DATE: April 24, 2005
AUTHOR: Deborah Sontag

PUBLICATION: The New York Times

Despite dire predictions that the streets would be awash in military- style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban last September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several metropolitan police departments.

On that note, Hot Topic sucks.
The only thing they have going for them is that they are the only store that carries a Foamy the Squirrel t-shirt that I know of.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Why hasn't that quote been sticking?
Because it is a dumb saying? :eek:

The obvious solution, which I am surprised you have not mentioned yet (maybe in another gun thread) is not to ban guns, or restrict them, but to make posession MANDATORY!

At all times. For Everyone. Children Too.

That way they can defend themselves at school.

Those who are just fine with the death penalty for children, surely understand the logic, do you not?

After all, guns don't kill, people do.

No, anyone deliberately arming themselves to kill or maim someone else is immoral in my book.

By all means defend yourself with kitchen knives or chairs or sticks. But I don't see why we should encourage people to prepare to kill someone else in a civilised society. If it is certain the man will attack her, then she can move or get extra locks. She does not need to prepare to murder someone.
There is nothing immoral about killing someone in defense of human life.

Having a system where women are trained to kill, and equipped specifically to do so sounds totally barbaric to me.

I would suggest a civilised society look at alternative means, such as protected accomodation and relocation, as well as mandatory anger management for spouse abusers. If they're being held under protective order, they ought to treated to try and reduce their violent nature. It's not just the women they are a threat to. If they can't be helped, then they should be imprisoned until they pose no threat.It's immoral and incompatable with US Constitutional law to imprison people for what they might do.

Having a system where women are trained to kill, and equipped specifically to do so sounds totally barbaric to me.

I would suggest a civilised society look at alternative means, such as protected accomodation and relocation, as well as mandatory anger management for spouse abusers. If they're being held under protective order, they ought to treated to try and reduce their violent nature. It's not just the women they are a threat to. If they can't be helped, then they should be imprisoned until they pose no threat.

It's immoral and incompatable with US Constitutional law to imprison people for what they might do.

Wasn't that a bad Tom Cruise movie?

Wasn't that a bad Tom Cruise movie?
Isn't that a tautology? :p

Isn't that a tautology? :p

Now that you mention it... yeah!

I wonder if some people here have considered some other countries before singing firearms praises.

The USA has a much higher murder rate PER 1000 population than most other European and developed countries.

www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Is this because of guns? Has the USA realised The War of Independance is over yet? Or is a musket still as vital to you as it always was

Understand guys.Theres no enemy anymore!You dont need weapons to defend yourselves against each other..... if no one else had weapons.

We in Europe seem to manage fine without them, I never seem to feel insecure without my trusty AK or RPG.
Shut up. I've read this same exact message so many fucking times. Doesn't anyone read a thread before they feel compelled to add their $.02? Everything you're saying has been addressed.

aggression/lack of empathy cannot be "educated" out of sociopaths. these are natural-born criminals.

most of us care at least enough about others to not beat them up/kill them for no reason.

To a sociopath, however, his brain is wired such that the only thing that matters is his personal gratification. The world is his playground and other people are his action figures with whom to play.

The disease is known as Antisocial Personality Disorder (at least it was in my Processes of Deviant Behavior class 6 years ago. hehe).

A lot of them are normal kids though. I must admit that some of them have been sociopaths, but most were not. There comes a time when enough is enough, and those good kids were just pushed too far and couldn't deal with it anymore. I know how they feel, I have some sympathy for the ones that weren't just pure evil.

So when do we take away cars? They kill more people than firearms every year in the US.
How about bathtubs? They *also* kill more people than firearms every year in the US.

The laws are perfectly adequate. What we need is better ENFORCEMENT, not new LEGISLATION.

Or parents that give a shit.

Bathtubs are rarely used to murder people. And I don't think that the number of
hit and run deaths out number the number of shooting deaths. The point isn't that people die. It's that people are MURDERED.

Bathtubs are rarely used to murder people. And I don't think that the number of
hit and run deaths out number the number of shooting deaths. The point isn't that people die. It's that people are MURDERED.

Hit and Runs do outnumber gunshot deaths. So do Drunk Driving Fatalities. IMHO, if you're old enough to drive, and you're able to get booze, you know you shouldn't combine the two, and if you do, it's as good as Trying to kill people. it's right up there with emptying the magazine into a schoolyard.

That may not be the POV of the Law, but maybe it ought to be. I have a long commute, and I work at night. Every friday, and often Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights (depending on who's out), I see the results of some jackass who didn't take the hints scattered liberally around that driving while hammered is BAD. I read about a shooting maybe once or twice a year in the local "Police Beat" section of the paper. I see Injury/Fatality accidents Every goddamned week, and most of the really gross ones (Two or more Ambulances, the investigation truck, numerous State-Patrol and County Mounties spreading flares on the road and taping it off for the Accident Investigators-every once in a while, they have to bring out a crane...)involve copilots like Johnny Walker, Jim Beam, or Jack Daniels. (Though I think the most common copilots out there are named "Bud" and "Busch".)

By way of comparison, I live in what passes for a 'bad' neighbourhood. There's been two shootings here in ten years.

Hit and Runs do outnumber gunshot deaths. So do Drunk Driving Fatalities. IMHO, if you're old enough to drive, and you're able to get booze, you know you shouldn't combine the two, and if you do, it's as good as Trying to kill people. it's right up there with emptying the magazine into a schoolyard.

Bullshit. Someone is being shot every five minutes in America. Hit and Runs don't outnumber gunshot deaths.

Bathtubs are rarely used to murder people. And I don't think that the number of
hit and run deaths out number the number of shooting deaths. The point isn't that people die. It's that people are MURDERED.

The point was the safety of the good, not if you kill people with them or not.

And the number of people killed by automobile is not just higher than shooting deaths, it is EXPONENTIALLY higher. (Zaxon posted the exact ratio in a different thread, I believe.)

And more children DROWN in less than a foot of water every year than by shootings.

The point is that I can murder you with a lead pipe. Do we get rid of indoor plumbing? :rolleyes:

I don't mean the number of deaths by car accident. I mean the number of deaths where people back out of their driveway intending to run down an old lady. And a lead pipe is supposed to be used for plumbing. I realize that you can kill someone with just about everything. A gun's sole function is to kill people. A lead pipes sole function is to be used in plumbing. Selling guns in wal mart and selling lead pipes communicate two different messages to the buyer.

I don't mean the number of deaths by car accident. I mean the number of deaths where people back out of their driveway intending to run down an old lady. And a lead pipe is supposed to be used for plumbing. I realize that you can kill someone with just about everything. A gun's sole function is to kill people. A lead pipes sole function is to be used in plumbing. Selling guns in wal mart and selling lead pipes communicate two different messages to the buyer.

What's a car accident? The guy driving 20 mph over the limit, rear ends a Honda, and pushes it into oncoming traffic, and gets the two people in it killed? Sorry, that's irresponsible driving.
I think you'd agree with me when I say that responsible driving doesn't kill. Likewise, responsible firearms handling doesn't kill.

Obviously, the lead pipe has more than one use... as does the car, the gun, or any other good one can think of. LOTS of things are used as they aren't intended. Ever use a dime for a flathead screwdriver? How about the spine of a book for a straight edge/ruler?

There is no "supposed" use for any good. The Supreme Court cited this as a reason (more or less, I'm sure Cat-Tribe will jump in with the exact statute) why the VCR & copier machines are legal, and why P2P will be legal. So long as a good has a legitimate use, it cannot be banned/regulated.

I don't mean the number of deaths by car accident. I mean the number of deaths where people back out of their driveway intending to run down an old lady. And a lead pipe is supposed to be used for plumbing. I realize that you can kill someone with just about everything. A gun's sole function is to kill people. A lead pipes sole function is to be used in plumbing. Selling guns in wal mart and selling lead pipes communicate two different messages to the buyer.
So no one in the US shoots a gun at a target? No one hunts? No one collects them for thier asthetic value?
Must be different there than every where else in the world then!
The primary function of a gun is to fire a bullet, it's only purpose is not to kill. Half the field sports in the olympics are based on weapons of war, whose initial function was to kill.
It is the people who hold the wepaons that are the problem, address that and there is no problem.

Banning guns treats the symptom, not the disease.

Banning guns treats the symptom, not the disease.

It actually doesn't really do that. Consider the knife violence in London.

Abolish 'free' compulsory education.


Yes, because poverty stricken illiterate societies work *so* much better.

It actually doesn't really do that. Consider the knife violence in London.
Sorry, point taken, it's an attempt to treat the symptom. As the knife is the single most used weopon in the UK for violent crime and murder, why have we not moved to ban knives with points. There are very few applications for knives with a point? The only one I can think of off hand is filletting fish.

Because this would take some effort and cost, hand guns were easy and it lost few votes.

Sorry, point taken, it's an attempt to treat the symptom. As the knife is the single most used weopon in the UK for violent crime and murder, why have we not moved to ban knives with points. There are very few applications for knives with a point? The only one I can think of off hand is filletting fish.

Because this would take some effort and cost, hand guns were easy and it lost few votes.

Don't you guys eat roast beef?? ;)

Guns were banned in the UK over several generations, and so it was less obvious. Tack onto that the UK has few "wide open spaces" (unlike the US), and guns just weren't as common to begin with. The settlers of England made the island safe with the bow & spear...

I'm not saying they weren't brave. I was saying they were ineffective. Had any of those teachers been allowed to be armed, those kids wouldn't have been able to kill so many and the incident would have been over much quicker.

Had those kids not lived in a gun-mad culture they could not have obtained the weapons. Simple fact - you can make all the "illegally modified" etc arguments you like, the simple truth is that the kids lived in a society where people see it as a right to have access to firearms.

Further, had anyone actually paid any attention to these kids, they wouldn't have *needed* to crack like that.

If you don't have a gun, or don't have ways to access a gun, you can't shoot anyone - period. Pro-gun nuts can say what they like, the notion that a society can keep up a guns-as-weapons mindset without endangering people is absurd.

Don't you guys eat roast beef?? ;)

Guns were banned in the UK over several generations, and so it was less obvious. Tack onto that the UK has few "wide open spaces" (unlike the US), and guns just weren't as common to begin with. The settlers of England made the island safe with the bow & spear...
You don't need a point to carve a roast, just a sharp blade.
There a fewer out door places to shoot but there were many hand gun clubs. And yes the laws were brought in over time. I don't want just anyone to have a gun, and there is no need for anyone in the UK to have a hand gun and ammunition in the same place. But the ban has done nothing to slow the gun crime growth in the UK.
I have used a number of Guns when in Canada and enjoy shooting, but would not wish to own anything other than a shot gun or .22 over here. But soon, I'm sure they will be banned, as more people who hold them illegally use them for crime the legal man suffers.

You don't need a point to carve a roast, just a sharp blade.
There a fewer out door places to shoot but there were many hand gun clubs. And yes the laws were brought in over time. I don't want just anyone to have a gun, and there is no need for anyone in the UK to have a hand gun and ammunition in the same place. But the ban has done nothing to slow the gun crime growth in the UK.
I have used a number of Guns when in Canada and enjoy shooting, but would not wish to own anything other than a shot gun or .22 over here. But soon, I'm sure they will be banned, as more people who hold them illegally use them for crime the legal man suffers.

The main difference is that in the US the culture is guns-as-weapons, whereas in the UK it is guns-as-sporting equipment.

The main difference is that in the US the culture is guns-as-weapons, whereas in the UK it is guns-as-sporting equipment.

Most rifles are sold as guns as sporting and hunting equipment in the US. So are shotguns. That's the culture we use them in over here.

You're probably still under the misconception that most violent crime in the US involves a gun. 76 percent of it involves no weapon other than bare hands. Of the remaining 24 percent, roughly half involves firearms - the rest is knives, clubs, rocks, etc.

While it is true that 67 percent of murder is committed with a firearm, 89 percent of rapes are committed with the strength of bare hands alone.

For a rapist, the culture of guns one way or the other hardly matters. And for most violent crime other than murder, guns are not the primary factor - they aren't even close.

The main difference is that in the US the culture is guns-as-weapons, whereas in the UK it is guns-as-sporting equipment.
And that is the crux of it. It is a cultural thing. It is peoples' attitudes and behaviours that need to change not the inanimate objects.

All paperwork from today's background checks must be destroyed in 24-48 hours, at least according to the guy who owns one of the ranges I frequent.


SUPPOSED to be destroyed. But we all know the government doesn't do what it should most of the time. :(



<snipping the silly registration stuff> :D :D :D

Bathtubs are rarely used to murder people. And I don't think that the number of
hit and run deaths out number the number of shooting deaths. The point isn't that people die. It's that people are MURDERED.

If I shoot in self-defense, it's not murder. People are murdered everyday with things other than guns.

Try to work on stopping murder, not the tool used to commit it.

The first step to stopping murder is to eliminate the means by which it is commited.

The first step to stopping murder is to eliminate the means by which it is commited.

By that logic, if we eliminate the human race, we won't have murder anymore.

Just one last terrific round.

Are you going to cut off people's hands? They are a means by which murder is committed.

Had those kids not lived in a gun-mad culture they could not have obtained the weapons. Simple fact - you can make all the "illegally modified" etc arguments you like, the simple truth is that the kids lived in a society where people see it as a right to have access to firearms.


That's kinda because it IS a right to defend yourself--and that means access to firearms.


Further, had anyone actually paid any attention to these kids, they wouldn't have *needed* to crack like that.


I am in complete agreement with that statement.


If you don't have a gun, or don't have ways to access a gun, you can't shoot anyone - period. Pro-gun nuts can say what they like, the notion that a society can keep up a guns-as-weapons mindset without endangering people is absurd.

You're right--they wouldn't be able to kill with a gun. But those that would use a firearm to hurt others will use other weapons. You don't stop the behavior by taking one of the tools away. Humans adapt.

You're the one trying to use pain killers to cure cancer (IE removing the symptom), instead of actually using treatments that work (IE to cure the disease). That sounds much more absurd to me.

The first step to stopping murder is to eliminate the means by which it is commited.

Bullshit. Humans adapt. If they want to kill, they find another way.

By that logic, if we eliminate the human race, we won't have murder anymore.

Just one last terrific round.

Are you going to cut off people's hands? They are a means by which murder is committed.

No, no, no....LOBOTOMIES! :D

The first step to stopping murder is to eliminate the means by which it is commited.
Knives then as this is the most common weapon by far.

Bullshit. Humans adapt. If they want to kill, they find another way.

You make a good point. But we should try to make it as hard for them as possible.

Bullshit. Humans adapt. If they want to kill, they find another way.

Now, can anyone clarify; are people allowed to own and/or carry grenades in public?

If not, as I suspect, is it maybe because they are dangerous?

'Grenades do not kill, people do'

( pardon my smugness :D )

Now, can anyone clarify; are people allowed to own and/or carry grenades in public?

If not, as I suspect, is it maybe because they are dangerous?

'Grenades do not kill, people do'

( pardon my smugness :D )
So you don't agree that people kill people, they use a variety of tools but it is the person that performs the act?
So would we not do better to cover all the bases rather than just one, let's try and make a society that values life.

No, no, no....LOBOTOMIES! :D

No, Cat-Tribe was appalled when I suggested that before.

So you don't agree that people kill people, they use a variety of tools but it is the person that performs the act?
So would we not do better to cover all the bases rather than just one, let's try and make a society that values life.


I entirely agree that people kill people. But people with grenades kill more people, more easily than people with guns, who in turn kill more people, more easily than people with knives, etc...

I entirely agree that people kill people. But people with grenades kill more people, more easily than people with guns, who in turn kill more people, more easily than people with knives, etc...

As I've pointed out before, I can spend 20 dollars and buy some common chemicals at the Home Depot and kill hundreds of people without causing an explosion or fire. I learned about the reaction in a university chemistry class (they gave us a warning about what not to mix unless you're under the hood).

Are you going to ban chemistry classes, and ban the sale of all acids, and ban the sale of items that when mixed with acid, release toxic gases?

As I've pointed out before, I can spend 20 dollars and buy some common chemicals at the Home Depot and kill hundreds of people without causing an explosion or fire. I learned about the reaction in a university chemistry class (they gave us a warning about what not to mix unless you're under the hood).

Are you going to ban chemistry classes, and ban the sale of all acids, and ban the sale of items that when mixed with acid, release toxic gases?


Yes, killing is easy. No, I am not going to ban chemistry classes.

Let me ask you then, are you going to allow grenades, mortars, mines, artillery for civilians who want them? On the grounds that some of those can be made at home? How about distributing the recipes of toxic gasses to everyone, just because they can make them anyway? How about 'nucular' weapons if someone has the money? BTW, why are 'nucular' wepons' regulated, and accounted for? How about Saddam's alleged anthrax?

Remember; anthrax doesn't kill, people do.

Yes, killing is easy. No, I am not going to ban chemistry classes.

Let me ask you then, are you going to allow grenades, mortars, mines, artillery for civilians who want them? On the grounds that some of those can be made at home? How about distributing the recipes of toxic gasses to everyone, just because they can make them anyway? How about 'nucular' weapons if someone has the money? BTW, why are 'nucular' wepons' regulated, and accounted for? How about Saddam's alleged anthrax?

Remember; anthrax doesn't kill, people do.

No, but if you consider that there are 300 million guns in active use in the US (an increase of 50 percent in 10 years), and that violent crime is still going DOWN to the lowest levels since the 1960s through that same time period, and that most violent crime does not involve a gun (although 67 percent of murder does), then guns are not the cause of violent crime.

It makes murder easier - but it also makes self-defense easier. And our murder rate has dropped significantly over the past 10 years.

So I don't see guns as the primary problem. If they were, then your insurance agent would ask you if you were a gun owner before selling you life insurance. I've spoken to many actuaries, and none of them think that owning a gun is a significant risk. They should know, since they have to pay for the risks.

Further, had anyone actually paid any attention to these kids, they wouldn't have *needed* to crack like that.

Don't give me that lie, those kids were being paid attention to, just not by the people that needed to. The teachers and workers knew these kids and some of them were working with them to try to figure stuff out. This type of thing isn't always solved by just 'giving them some attention.'

this even went to the point that the kids used some discression in the incident, telling a teacher and several students to 'just go' and 'leave now' before it started.

So I don't see guns as the primary problem. If they were, then your insurance agent would ask you if you were a gun owner before selling you life insurance. I've spoken to many actuaries, and none of them think that owning a gun is a significant risk. They should know, since they have to pay for the risks.

Can you get insurance to cover you in case you shoot someone at school? I believe not. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, though.

If I am right, insurance companies do not have to pay for the risks, so they should not know.

I agree however that guns are not the only problem. They have lots of guns in Canada, do they not? But I'd be a lot more comfortable around someone on a killing spree if he/she had a knife, than a gun, or a grenade, etc...

'nucular weapons don't kill, people do'

Can you get insurance to cover you in case you shoot someone at school? I believe not. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, though.

If I am right, insurance companies do not have to pay for the risks, so they should not know.

I agree however that guns are not the only problem. They have lots of guns in Canada, do they not? But I'd be a lot more comfortable around someone on a killing spree if he/she had a knife, than a gun, or a grenade, etc...

'nucular weapons don't kill, people do'

The actuaries told me that depending on the nature of the incident they have to pay. If you're shot and killed by a mugger, the life insurance still pays, albeit after an investigation. If you accidentally shoot yourself with your own gun and die, the life insurance still pays, albeit after an investigation. Doesn't pay when it's a suicide.

Obviously, accidental shooting in your house is not considered an identifiable risk by the life insurance industry.

Bullshit. Humans adapt. If they want to kill, they find another way.

I'd rather a child take a blade to school than a Tec 9 - wouldn't you?

So you don't agree that people kill people, they use a variety of tools but it is the person that performs the act?
So would we not do better to cover all the bases rather than just one, let's try and make a society that values life.

Painkillers are given to people with broken legs along with a plaster cast.

You make a good point. But we should try to make it as hard for them as possible.

The problem is how do you do that without infringing upon rights? Note, this particular gun-nut hates the Patriot Act. <points to self>

I'd rather a child take a blade to school than a Tec 9 - wouldn't you?

I would rather that my daughter take a Glock to school. She's a better and faster shot - far more competent - than most of the local police.

Whenever we're at the range, there are always a few policemen (the few who show an interest in firearms - most don't). It's like that scene in the first Robocop movie, where you hear rapid fire from one end of the range, and they all come down to see the 12 year old girl. Her split times between shots are so short, it sounds like she's firing a machinegun - if she only fires two shots, you hear only one.

Now, can anyone clarify; are people allowed to own and/or carry grenades in public?

If not, as I suspect, is it maybe because they are dangerous?

'Grenades do not kill, people do'

( pardon my smugness :D )

Ah yes, somewhere along the way, the government convinced itself to fly in the face of the second amendment (which was penned so the people could defend against their own government, should the need arise). This is why civilians can't get them legally.

Ah yes, somewhere along the way, the government convinced itself to fly in the face of the second amendment (which was penned so the people could defend against their own government, should the need arise). This is why civilians can't get them legally.

You think civilians should be allowed to own grenades?

No, Cat-Tribe was appalled when I suggested that before.

Yeah, well, you know how he is.

Though, I'd have to agree. I'll take the death penalty over cutting up someone's head.

If they don't get it this time around, speed them on to the next, maybe they'll learn that way--taking away some of their cognative ability won't help any.

You think civilians should be allowed to own grenades?
If you get a license for a destructive device, which is merely a matter of a background investigation, some forms, and several thousand dollars (more than a Class III license), you can own hand grenades here in the US.

How do you think commerical blasting companies get permission to own and use explosives that are far more sophisticated and powerful and convenient than a simple hand grenade?

Remember; anthrax doesn't kill, people do.

Actually, yes it does--it's an animal and can move all on its own. Reproduces on its own, too. It's small, but it IS animate.

I'd rather a child take a blade to school than a Tec 9 - wouldn't you?

I'd rather the child's parents knew how fucked up their kid was and were doing something about it before any of that happens.

I'd rather the child's parents knew how fucked up their kid was and were doing something about it before any of that happens.


Agreed. How are we gonna make that happen?

Actually, yes it does--it's an animal and can move all on its own. Reproduces on its own, too. It's small, but it IS animate.

Do you Really want to go into the definition of killing?

Really?

Bring it on then!

"OK, let's not blame the terrorists, it was the anthrax that did the actual killing"

Agreed. How are we gonna make that happen?
Make parents legally liable (criminal and civil) for all actions taken by their children.

That would pique the interest of most parents.

If you get a license for a destructive device, which is merely a matter of a background investigation, some forms, and several thousand dollars (more than a Class III license), you can own hand grenades here in the US.

How do you think commerical blasting companies get permission to own and use explosives that are far more sophisticated and powerful and convenient than a simple hand grenade?

But you need that license, the background info, and the dollars. Why?

Do you Really want to go into the definition of killing?

Really?

Bring it on then!

"OK, let's not blame the terrorists, it was the anthrax that did the actual killing"

No, I was arguing the difference between an inanimate object which requires an animate being to cause something to happen, vs. and animate being that actually commits the act. The bacteria will attack on its own. A gun won't.

So, guns don't kill people, bacteria do. :D

But you need that license, the background info, and the dollars. Why?

Because the license allows you to buy an unlimited amount of explosives.

A semi-automatic firearm is far less lethal by comparison.

We already license and background check the owners of fully automatic weapons (have since 1934).

We already background check people who buy guns in gun stores.

You think civilians should be allowed to own grenades?

Yup.

Make parents legally liable (criminal and civil) for all actions taken by their children.

That would pique the interest of most parents.

+1 to that!

I would rather that my daughter take a Glock to school. She's a better and faster shot - far more competent - than most of the local police.



How about her fellow students, would you rather they had guns or knives or nothing?

That is a part of the beauty of guns... You can kill without skill

BTW, when the crossbow emerged in med. europe, the knights sent a petition to the pope, demanding that this weapon be condemned and outlawed. Because practically for the first time, someone without skill or training or expensive armour could kill a knight. War had become dangerous :eek:

How about her fellow students, would you rather they had guns or knives or nothing?

That is a part of the beauty of guns... You can kill without skill

BTW, when the crossbow emerged in med. europe, the knights sent a petition to the pope, demanding that this weapon be condemned and outlawed. Because practically for the first time, someone without skill or training or expensive armour could kill a knight. War had become dangerous :eek:

To kill without skill... now there's an unusual statement.

It does take skill in order to kill with a pistol. It isn't like the movies. If I move, and the typical policeman is shooting at me from the typical distance of 7 yards, he's going to fire at least 5 shots before he hits me - maybe more, depending on the police in your jurisdiction. And they've had lessons.

If my daughter has a Glock in a holster, and you step into a room and start raising a pistol to fire, you can expect the first of her rounds to enter your skull approximately half a second into your arm coming up. After that, subsequent rounds will enter ever 0.11 to 0.13 seconds.

If you haven't the skill, you won't know what hit you. And no one will recognize your head, either.

If my daughter has a Glock in a holster, and you step into a room and start raising a pistol to fire, you can expect the first of her rounds to enter your skull approximately half a second into your arm coming up. After that, subsequent rounds will enter ever 0.11 to 0.13 seconds.

If you haven't the skill, you won't know what hit you. And no one will recognize your head, either.

scary scary stuff. Nevertheless, she could be killed by someone who is shooting his first round ever. Unless she is always looking over her shoulder.

Then who will be recognizing whose head?

scary scary stuff. Nevertheless, she could be killed by someone who is shooting his first round ever. Unless she is always looking over her shoulder.

It's called situational awareness. And yes, I've been working on it since she was small.

scary scary stuff. Nevertheless, she could be killed by someone who is shooting his first round ever. Unless she is always looking over her shoulder.

Then who will be recognizing whose head?

An unarmed student could be killed by a crazy student shooting for their first time. Even if they are looking over their shoulder.

And the bad guy's head would not be recognizable. Put 15 rounds of 9mm hollowpoint through the head before it drops to the ground, and there's not going to be a lot of dental work left.

An unarmed student could be killed by a crazy student shooting for their first time. Even if they are looking over their shoulder.

And the bad guy's head would not be recognizable. Put 15 rounds of 9mm hollowpoint through the head before it drops to the ground, and there's not going to be a lot of dental work left.


Let us hope she doesn't shoot someone pointing a finger at her...out of 'situational awareness'

SUPPOSED to be destroyed. But we all know the government doesn't do what it should most of the time. :(


<snipping the silly registration stuff> :D :D :D

Ah, that's just being paranoid. :)

Besides, it's already been proven that if it *isn't* destroyed, it is inadmissable in the courts.

You don't need a point to carve a roast, just a sharp blade.

That's getting pretty arcane. ;)

There a fewer out door places to shoot but there were many hand gun clubs. And yes the laws were brought in over time.
I don't want just anyone to have a gun, and there is no need for anyone in the UK to have a hand gun and ammunition in the same place.

Sorry, that smacks of elitism and paternalism to me. :(
I believe that unless you're a felon or legally insane that you are allowed to enjoy your freedoms in any manner you want so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others.

But the ban has done nothing to slow the gun crime growth in the UK.
I have used a number of Guns when in Canada and enjoy shooting, but would not wish to own anything other than a shot gun or .22 over here. But soon, I'm sure they will be banned, as more people who hold them illegally use them for crime the legal man suffers.

Exactly.

Now, can anyone clarify; are people allowed to own and/or carry grenades in public?

If not, as I suspect, is it maybe because they are dangerous?

'Grenades do not kill, people do'

( pardon my smugness :D )

That would depend on state law. I'm pretty sure it IS legal in Alaska & New Hampshire... just about everything is.

I'd rather a child take a blade to school than a Tec 9 - wouldn't you?

If the knife is longer than 4" long, illegal to carry in my state.
If you're not licensed for type 3 weapons, the tec9 is illegal to carry in my state.

Seems a wash. Both are illegal items, and if I want an illegal item badly enough, I'm going to get it.

The first step to stopping murder is to eliminate the means by which it is commited.



You can murder something with a fist or foot, punch/kick them to death, will you ban hands and feet?

That's kinda because it IS a right to defend yourself--and that means access to firearms.



I am in complete agreement with that statement.



You're right--they wouldn't be able to kill with a gun. But those that would use a firearm to hurt others will use other weapons. You don't stop the behavior by taking one of the tools away. Humans adapt.

You're the one trying to use pain killers to cure cancer (IE removing the symptom), instead of actually using treatments that work (IE to cure the disease). That sounds much more absurd to me.



This quote sums it up, "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

It's all too easy to blame guns, (branches), and ignore the culture of violence, lax enforcement of laws against violent crime, slap on the wrist punishments, revolving door justice systems, and then the very criminals themselves (root of the problem).

I'd rather a child take a blade to school than a Tec 9 - wouldn't you?

I'd rather a kid (assuming it were my kid) take a 1911 .45 to school, or a .380 PPK, since I think at this day in age, you can only rely on yourself to save yourself.

Seems a wash. Both are illegal items, and if I want an illegal item badly enough, I'm going to get it.

Right. The same goes for illegal drugs, such as crack. How about just dropping that narcotics ban?

Right. The same goes for illegal drugs, such as crack. How about just dropping that narcotics ban?

That would eliminate most violent crime in the US.

Right. The same goes for illegal drugs, such as crack. How about just dropping that narcotics ban?

I'm all for it.
I also think Prohibition was illegal to begin with.

That would eliminate most violent crime in the US.

Actually, you just may be right on that one...Has there been any serious political debate?

The first step to stopping murder is to eliminate the means by which it is commited.
Fetishism. It takes a conscious effort to obtain a weapon, load it with ammunition (hell, it takes one to obtain the ammo most places), point it, and pull the trigger.

Fetishism banned one-handed knives for years, to avoid the "Switchblade Knife Problem", which was wholly created by Hollywood "Street Gang" movies like The Blackboard Jungle in the 1950's.

Guns don't cause crime, Knives don't cause crime. CRIMINALS cause crime.

Fooling around with banning inanimate objects is like trying to hurt someone with a voodoo doll-it doesn't work as intended. It's prohibitively hard to get most firearms in Mexico, seen pics of the Zapatistas? They've got hardware you can't even get in the U.S. without special licenses in a country where a law-abiding citizen (yes, they do exist in Mexico!) can't even get a .22 pistol!

Criminals willobtain the weapon of their choice. The only question is, will citizens who are not interested in harming others, be able to obtain an effective means of defense and deterrence, or not?
Even European nations that have outright bans have gun-crime, and the weapons aren't coming from the U.S.

There is no magic wand that you can use to make violence just go-away. No special pill, and no infringement short of absolute 1984 tyranny that you can use to make a ban effective on the people that, presumably, you want it to affect.

Banning objects is window-dressing to pretend you're doing something about the problem, it's pure style-over-substance thinking.

Actually, you just may be right on that one...Has there been any serious political debate?
Here in the US, if a Democrat said that, he would be lambasted as being "soft on crime", and if a Republican said that, he would be taken to a rehab center.

The answer is, "No."

And the bad guy's head would not be recognizable. Put 15 rounds of 9mm hollowpoint through the head before it drops to the ground, and there's not going to be a lot of dental work left.
Hollowpoints are illegal.

Criminals willobtain the weapon of their choice.
Even if said weapon isn't even in the goddamned country? You can't acquire an AK if there are no AKs to acquire.

Hollowpoints are illegal.

Not in the United States, and certainly not illegal in Virginia.