NationStates Jolt Archive

(By the way, I read the first two sentences. I'll read the rest when you start using paragraphs.)
*cough hack weeze* So much smug...can't brea--

The two perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began. Harris and Kelbold were determined to kill, as was Seung-Hui Cho. Eric and Dylan did use their knowledge to produce and modify weapons and the Columbine Massacre would have happened whether they had legal access to guns or not. Given Cho's access to the same information and his determination to go through with his plan I think it's reasonable to assume that V-Tech would have also kicked in, yo.

Mass shootings get the news and incite the demented honking of the anti-gun lobby but they really don't kill that many people and the weapons employed by the killers are never to blame.

There is no evidence that less people died. That's where the problem lies. Like I said, if you're going to include this as evidence, then every legally-owned firearm used in a murder also counts, and, friend, you're gonna lose that battle.
Nope. Provide proof, not weak stories that may or may not have done anything to help.
Hmmm... you mean the guns should have been better controlled? You realize no matter how you slice it, it was gun control that was needed in these cases if you're claiming that they slipped through the cracks.
No, he didn't lie. According to the state's attorney, he followed the law. The law asks if he'd been in an institution in the past five years. I posted the exact question it asks.
Hehe. Pardon? Tell me exactly what I've misrepresented? First you made completely erroneous claims about what I was arguing, now you're squirming. What part of your position did I misrepresent? Be specific and stop wriggling.

*Sigh* No, you posted the FOID card application which doesn't show "when" he applied. I posted the "exact" question on the 4473 which is the purchase form.

You just keep making up what I'm stating. It makes you look so smart. :rolleyes:

That's nice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/police-investigate-niu-sh_n_87011.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo/080216/480/2b030919586d4e07ade98877f078d3c2/

Kazmierczak spent more than a year at the Thresholds-Mary Hill House in the late 1990s, former house manager Louise Gbadamashi told The Associated Press. His parents placed him there after high school because he had become "unruly" at home, she said.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/4473/index.htm

Question 12F

However, according to IL law, he can legally own a firearm.

Meanwhile, it's my understanding that the federal law only pertains to involuntary incarceration. You'll notice the term "adjudicated" and "committed". I've seen no evidence that it was involuntary. They say his parents placed him, but having known people who ended up in hospitals for similar reasons, it's voluntary. He was an adult. Without actions by the court, he can't be committed.

Wrong again:
"..Or have you ever been committed to a mental institution in the last 5 years".

He should have answered "Yes" which invalidated him from legally purchasing every single gun he bought.

If that's your "understanding", then cite the relevant laws.

Bold added by me for completion of the question in IL at least.

Also, the States Attorny saying it ws legal should be enough for any rational person...

If it were up to me, I would give all the teachers tasers or tranquilizers and training to use both those and real firearms. Then I would also have a locked weapons locker at the school security or administrative building, just in case more firepower is necessary. At least something to use while the cops are on their way.

However, according to IL law, he can legally own a firearm.

Meanwhile, it's my understanding that the federal law only pertains to involuntary incarceration. You'll notice the term "adjudicated" and "committed". I've seen no evidence that it was involuntary. They say his parents placed him, but having known people who ended up in hospitals for similar reasons, it's voluntary. He was an adult. Without actions by the court, he can't be committed.

Wrong again:
"..Or have you ever been committed to a mental institution".

He should have answered "Yes" which invalidated him from legally purchasing every single gun he bought.

If that's your "understanding", then cite the relevant laws.

*cough hack weeze* So much smug...can't brea--

The two perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, even before the massacre began. Harris and Kelbold were determined to kill, as was Seung-Hui Cho. Eric and Dylan did use their knowledge to produce and modify weapons and the Columbine Massacre would have happened whether they had legal access to guns or not. Given Cho's access to the same information and his determination to go through with his plan I think it's reasonable to assume that V-Tech would have also kicked in, yo.

So we get to just make things up, "yo"? Yay. I claim that if all handguns were illegal that these people would have started charitable organizations that feed hungry children. See how fun wildly speculating can be.


Mass shootings get the news and incite the demented honking of the anti-gun lobby but they really don't kill that many people and the weapons employed by the killers are never to blame.

Non-sequitter. What does that have to do with what I said?

Actually, it's apples and oranges. We were talking about the requirements for legally owning firearms and he's talking about purchase. He's right that for purchase that question is asked. Unfortunately, he doesn't know what it means.

So the permit he was required to show the gun seller chap isn't enough on its own? He still has to fill in that form?

Gun nuts and their lack of logic...:p

So the permit he was required to show the gun seller chap isn't enough on its own? He still has to fill in that form?


Yep.


At least thats how it was for me.

Wrong again:
"..Or have you ever been committed to a mental institution".

He should have answered "Yes" which invalidated him from legally purchasing every single gun he bought.

If that's your "understanding", then cite the relevant laws.

Commit - to place in a mental institution or hospital by or as if by legal authority

I'm sorry if you don't know what committed means, but it does mean involuntary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/commit

You've not demonstrated he was committed.

Obviously you didn't look at the link you posted. Had you, you would have noticed that that isn't the question asked in IL.

Actually, it's apples and oranges. We were talking about the requirements for legally owning firearms and he's talking about purchase. He's right that for purchase that question is asked. Unfortunately, he doesn't know what it means.

Right. He was "placed there by his parents" so he was under their legal authority.

If you believe otherwise, then you prove it. This nonsense is getting old.

HE HAS!

Jesus, hes disproved everything youve claimed. Just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean it isnt there.


When his parents placed him there, he was 18. Therefore, there was no legal authority, it was voluntary.


Everyone (including the States Attorny!) knows he got it legally except you.

Commit - to place in a mental institution or hospital by or as if by legal authority

I'm sorry if you don't know what committed means, but it does mean involuntary.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/commit

You've not demonstrated he was committed.

Right. He was "placed there by his parents" so he was under their legal authority.

If you believe otherwise, then you prove it. This nonsense is getting old.

Actually, it's apples and oranges. We were talking about the requirements for legally owning firearms and he's talking about purchase. He's right that for purchase that question is asked. Unfortunately, he doesn't know what it means.

Purchase to legally own. You have to lie to make your argument.

Yes, he has to fill out the ATF form.

*Way to show complete ignorance of the US process to legally aquire firearms Chris*

Kecibukia, I apoligise for implying that you are a cretin.

So the permit he was required to show the gun seller chap isn't enough on its own? He still has to fill in that form?

Yes, he has to fill out the ATF form.

You are showing you don't know what you're talking about but you're so sanctimonious you won't admit it.

As the pot calls the kettle black.

Purchase to legally own. You have to lie to make your argument.

I'm not lying. I'm clarifying for someone else who is confused. In some states, you don't have to fill out the ATF form. It's only required to be filled out federally if you purchase from a licensed dealer. There is a difference in the usage of the two things, friend, whether you recognize it or not. Legally, I could purchase a firearm, in some states, and give it to someone with a legal state license.

Meanwhile, here is an explanation for you of the question -

http://www.gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

Notice this -

This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.

Like I said, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stop talking.

HE HAS!

Jesus, hes disproved everything youve claimed. Just because you dont like the answer doesnt mean it isnt there.


When his parents placed him there, he was 18. Therefore, there was no legal authority, it was voluntary.


Everyone (including the States Attorny!) knows he got it legally except you.

He hasn't disproved anything. The SA is covering the ISP's ass. Just look at the damn form.

Right. He was "placed there by his parents" so he was under their legal authority.

If you believe otherwise, then you prove it. This nonsense is getting old.

He was an adult. It was post high school. They don't have legal authority to commit him. You're claiming that he lied on the form. As such, the burden is on you, friend. So far, all evidence is against you.

He hasn't disproved anything. The SA is covering the ISP's ass. Just look at the damn form.

I did and I know what it means. You apparently don't, which is when when I said it had to be involuntary you claimed I was wrong.

I'm not lying. I'm clarifying for someone else who is confused. In some states, you don't have to fill out the ATF form. It's only required to be filled out federally if you purchase from a licensed dealer. There is a difference in the usage of the two things, friend, whether you recognize it or not. Legally, I could purchase a firearm, in some states, and give it to someone with a legal state license.

Meanwhile, here is an explanation for you of the question -

http://www.gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

Notice this -

This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.

Like I said, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stop talking.

No. While you don't have to fill out the form for a private purchase you still are supposed to be legally able to purchase it by those standards. Otherwise you are committing a felony. If you transfer it to someone knowing they don't meet those standards, you are committing a felony.

He DID by it from an FFL dealer so he lied on the form. He parents were his lawful authority and had him committed for a year.

You are showing you don't know what you're talking about but you're so sanctimonious you won't admit it.

I did and I know what it means. You apparently don't, which is when when I said it had to be involuntary you claimed I was wrong.

And you still haven't shown it was "voluntary" except by your opinion. His parents, the lawful authority, placed him there.

So what was that about 6 months and knowing more about it?

If you'll notice, I said 5 years. The one time I said 6 months I was thinking of something else.


ATF said it was legal.
States Attorny said it was legal.
Law Enforcement Officers over here said it was legal.

You lose.

He hasn't disproved anything. The SA is covering the ISP's ass. Just look at the damn form.

Hmmm... you sure.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/02/15/grad_students_guns_were_bought_legally_in_champaign

The shotgun-wielding graduate student who opened fire on a crowded Northern Illinois University lecture hall bought his stockpile of four guns legally, federal officials said Friday.

The shooter, Stephen Kazmierczak, 27, purchased the four guns from a federally licensed firearms dealer in Champaign, said Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

According to the ATF, he purchased them legally. Like I said, the ball's in your court. Wanna prove it was an illegal purchase?

And you still haven't shown it was "voluntary" except by your opinion. His parents, the lawful authority, placed him there.

Hey, keep yelling at the rain to stop being wet, but according to EVERY source he violated no laws until he brought those guns on campus. The ATF said it was a legal purchase. He was an adult. As an adult, his parents don't have legal authority. Given that every quote by every government official says it was legal, you've got the burden, Bubba. Let's see you meet it.

Hmmm... you sure.

http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2008/02/15/grad_students_guns_were_bought_legally_in_champaign

The shotgun-wielding graduate student who opened fire on a crowded Northern Illinois University lecture hall bought his stockpile of four guns legally, federal officials said Friday.

The shooter, Stephen Kazmierczak, 27, purchased the four guns from a federally licensed firearms dealer in Champaign, said Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

According to the ATF, he purchased them legally. Like I said, the ball's in your court. Wanna prove it was an illegal purchase?

I already did. I posted the ATF forms and that he was committed by his parents, not "voluntary". You haven't got anything but a newspaper article from unnamed quotes.

If you want to believe it was a legal purchase, you go right ahead.

As the pot calls the kettle black.

So what was that about 6 months and knowing more about it?

Hey, keep yelling at the rain to stop being wet, but according to EVERY source he violated no laws until he brought those guns on campus. The ATF said it was a legal purchase. He was an adult. As an adult, his parents don't have legal authority. Given that every quote by every government official says it was legal, you've got the burden, Bubba. Let's see you meet it.

"Every source" except for the actual forms and the legal requirements.

But you keep believing it.

No. While you don't have to fill out the form for a private purchase you still are supposed to be legally able to purchase it by those standards. Otherwise you are committing a felony. If you transfer it to someone knowing they don't meet those standards, you are committing a felony.

That doesn't change that the two things are different. I was explaining this to someone who didn't understand the difference. I'm sorry you're so angry that you can't follow the conversation.

Meanwhile, prove it. Prove you've committed a felony if you own a firearm that you acquired through otherwise legal means but don't meet the requirements based on that form.

He DID by it from an FFL dealer so he lied on the form. He parents were his lawful authority and had him committed for a year.

You are showing you don't know what you're talking about but you're so sanctimonious you won't admit it.

Hehe. Really? So far the ATF, the SA and I all don't know what's going on. Who else? Who else doesn't know what the gun laws are?

Usually shooting sprees end themselves. They are a self correcting problem.

"Every source" except for the actual forms and the legal requirements.

But you keep believing it.

The actual forms say it MUST be involuntary. You've not demonstrated it was involuntary. He was an adult when he was admitted. As such, his parents didn't have legal authority to commit him.

If you'll notice, I said 5 years. The one time I said 6 months I was thinking of something else.


ATF said it was legal.
States Attorny said it was legal.
Law Enforcement Officers over here said it was legal.

You lose.

Oh, no. The ATF doesn't understand their own forms. Obviously, it was illegal. I mean, who should we believe, lawyers and agencies whose job it is to know if it was a legal purchase, or some tool on the internet who is making crap up? I think the answer is obvious. Keb knows all.

He hasn't disproved anything. The SA is covering the ISP's ass. Just look at the damn form.

I have ... it says commited ... and it appears he was never commited but voulenteered to be institutionalized

The actual forms say it MUST be involuntary. You've not demonstrated it was involuntary. He was an adult when he was admitted. As such, his parents didn't have legal authority to commit him.

His age is utterly irrelevent. His parent don't have the power to commit him period.

In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

Decision regarding this at http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/LegalResources/CaseLaws/Case1.htm

"Logic"? Is that what "denial" is reffered to nowadays? Show anywhere where he "volunteered" to be committed.

I'll wait.

He was 18 years old at the time was he not? If so his "Parents" had no actual legal athority over him and could not have had him commited wtihout a court order.

Was their a court order?

Edit: Hmm according to the post before this it looks like even if he was under-age they could not have had him commited.

I have ... it says commited ... and it appears he was never commited but voulenteered to be institutionalized

I tried making that statement, it didnt work.


This guy is apperantly impervious to logic.

That doesn't change that the two things are different. I was explaining this to someone who didn't understand the difference. I'm sorry you're so angry that you can't follow the conversation.

I'm sorry you have to invent claims to debunk.

Meanwhile, prove it. Prove you've committed a felony if you own a firearm that you acquired through otherwise legal means but don't meet the requirements based on that form.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Got you're pathetic.

http://atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]

Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.




Hehe. Really? So far the ATF, the SA and I all don't know what's going on. Who else? Who else doesn't know what the gun laws are?

You and Knights obviously.

This is so sad. Being shown the evidence, it is still being ignored for some CYOA quotes in papers by the very authorities that would be held accountable.

I'm sorry you have to invent claims to debunk.



HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Got you're pathetic.

http://atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition? [Back]

Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

(4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.






You and Knights obviously.




You should write the ATF. Tell them what you told us. Tell them their wrong and that the gun purchase was illegal.


Let us know how they respond. It will be good for a laugh.

I tried making that statement, it didnt work.


This guy is apperantly impervious to logic.

"Logic"? Is that what "denial" is reffered to nowadays? Show anywhere where he "volunteered" to be committed.

I'll wait.

You should write the ATF. Tell them what you told us. Tell them their wrong and that the gun purchase was illegal.


Let us know how they respond. It will be good for a laugh.

So who should I talk to? Can you name the "Federal Employee" they quoted?

I'm sorry you have to invent claims to debunk.

Invent claims. Ask the person I was replying to if I clarified it adequately for him. He was talking about the wrong requirements. I showed him this and which requirements are for what. You've been jumping all over it, but, frankly, you're just showing you're angry and unwilling to pay attention.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Got you're pathetic.

http://atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm

(B5) Are there certain persons who cannot legally receive or possess firearms and/or ammunition?

Yes, a person who –

(1) Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year;

(2) Is a fugitive from justice;

(3) Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

[B](4) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;

(6) Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship;

(8) Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner; or

(9) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

(10) Cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.


I'll give you that one, though, it still shows that Cho could legally own and posses firearms. See how I accept evidence. Now, you're turn. Accept the evidence. Cho owned those firearms legally. Why is that too scary to admit?

"Logic"? Is that what "denial" is reffered to nowadays? Show anywhere where he "volunteered" to be committed.

I'll wait.

Shifting the burden of proof. You're claiming he lied on the form. All evidence we have shows he didn't. If you want to claim otherwise, the evidenciary burden is on you. I also don't have to prove that he has never had a felony conviction, that he was a fugitive from justice or any number of other things. You know why? Because until some evidence appears that shows he lied about any of these things, the burden lies on those claiming he committed a crime.

"Logic"? Is that what "denial" is reffered to nowadays? Show anywhere where he "volunteered" to be committed.

I'll wait.

I repeat:

His age is utterly irrelevent. His parent don't have the power to commit him period.

In 1975, the United States Supreme Court ruled that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. This ruling forced individual states to change their statutes. For example, the individual must be exhibiting behavior that is a danger to himself or others in order to be held, the hold must be for evaluation only and a court order must be received for more than very short term treatment or hospitalization (typically no longer than 72 hours). This ruling has severely limited involuntary treatment and hospitalization in the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment

Decision regarding this at http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.o...Laws/Case1.htm

Please show that parents have the power to commit their children, contrary to a USSC decision or that minors are excempt from this decision.

So who should I talk to? Can you name the "Federal Employee" they quoted?

Sure, Thomas Ahem. I quoted him when I put the article up. He's quoted in several of the stories as saying the purchase was legal. He's the spokesman for the ATF and as such is giving the official position. However, if you have evidence they don't, by all means, provide it.

Nice Red Herring. I stated that Cho got them "legally" because the VA authorities didn't report it to the VA state system like they were supposed to.

See how you invent claims?

Is confused, I thought everyone was talking about Steven Kazmierczak?

Invent claims. Ask the person I was replying to if I clarified it adequately for him. He was talking about the wrong requirements. I showed him this and which requirements are for what. You've been jumping all over it, but, frankly, you're just showing you're angry and unwilling to pay attention.




I'll give you that one, though, it still shows that Cho could legally own and posses firearms. See how I accept evidence. Now, you're turn. Accept the evidence. Cho owned those firearms legally. Why is that too scary to admit?

Nice Red Herring. I stated that Cho got them "legally" because the VA authorities didn't report it to the VA state system like they were supposed to.

See how you invent claims?

Actually, typically, minors don't have the rights of adults. Otherwise, grounding a child would violate their personal liberty. Current medical laws would violate privacy rights as well. There are a plethora of things where that would apply.

However, we have no evidence that the parents had the ability to commit their son or that they did so. The assessment by the ATF is that Cho could legally obtain and own a firearm, despite the incessant whining of some to the contrary.

Committal is a legal term, meaning a joint legal/medical decision to deprive liberty for the protection of the subject or of others. Parents don't have the power to commit, they can leave their child in the custody of another and require them to stay there but they can't commit.

I repeat:



Please show that parents have the power to commit their children, contrary to a USSC decision or that minors are excempt from this decision.

Actually, typically, minors don't have the rights of adults. Otherwise, grounding a child would violate their personal liberty. Current medical laws would violate privacy rights as well. There are a plethora of things where that would apply.

However, we have no evidence that the parents had the ability to commit their son or that they did so. The assessment by the ATF is that Cho could legally obtain and own a firearm, despite the incessant whining of some to the contrary.

Shifting the burden of proof. You're claiming he lied on the form. All evidence we have shows he didn't. If you want to claim otherwise, the evidenciary burden is on you. I also don't have to prove that he has never had a felony conviction, that he was a fugitive from justice or any number of other things. You know why? Because until some evidence appears that shows he lied about any of these things, the burden lies on those claiming he committed a crime.

No, the evidence you like to accept shows he didn't. I'm waiting for the voluntary committment evidence. You haven't shown it. I'll keep waiting.

Nice Red Herring. I stated that Cho got them "legally" because the VA authorities didn't report it to the VA state system like they were supposed to.

See how you invent claims?

If he lied on the form, it would be an illegal purchase. According to the ATF, he didn't do anything that would make his owning or purchasing firearms illegal. Accept the evidence.

Now let's see.

I already did. I posted the ATF forms and that he was committed by his parents, not "voluntary". You haven't got anything but a newspaper article from unnamed quotes.

If you want to believe it was a legal purchase, you go right ahead.

Yep, I better stop inventing your claims.

Actually, typically, minors don't have the rights of adults. Otherwise, grounding a child would violate their personal liberty. Current medical laws would violate privacy rights as well. There are a plethora of things where that would apply.

However, we have no evidence that the parents had the ability to commit their son or that they did so. The assessment by the ATF is that Cho could legally obtain and own a firearm, despite the incessant whining of some to the contrary.

Holy Fuck can you twist a lie around. First sentence you're talking about committing their son which the very institution said happened, then you talk about Cho again.


Can you be any more disingenuous?

If he lied on the form, it would be an illegal purchase. According to the ATF, he didn't do anything that would make his owning or purchasing firearms illegal. Accept the evidence.

Yet he was committed as stated by the very home he was in and the form asks if he was committed which would deny him legal purchasing or possession.

Round and Round we go.

Holy Fuck can you twist a lie around. First sentence you're talking about committing their son which the very institution said happened, then you talk about Cho again.


Can you be any more disingenuous?

Not real clear on what I said, huh? I said that minors do not enjoy rights in the same way as adults, but that there is no evidence he was a minor at the time he was in an institution. Totally consistent. Again, you seem to think I have to take a with us or against attitude when, in fact, I simply point out the facts.

Yeah, I totally need to stop inventing your arguments. I mean right hear you tell me to go on erroneously believing it was a legal purchase, but, hey, that doesn't mean you were claiming it wasn't legal.

And now you change topics again.

You've proven yourself to be nothing but a flat out disingenuous liar in this thread J.

I really shouldn't expect anything more on NSG though.

Not real clear on what I said, huh? I said that minors do not enjoy rights in the same way as adults, but that there is no evidence he was a minor at the time he was in an institution. Totally consistent. Again, you seem to think I have to take a with us or against attitude when, in fact, I simply point out the facts.

And now you're making up what I "think".

Proving my point again.

Yet he was committed as stated by the very home he was in and the form asks if he was committed which would deny him legal purchasing or possession.

Round and Round we go.

Commit is very narrowly defined by the ATF in the letter I quoted. Please quote the institution saying he was placed there involuntarily.

And now you're making up what I "think".

Proving my point again.

You missed a bit. "You seem to think". I only said how you seem. It's an assessment of your behavior. I notice now you're picking nits. What's the matter, Bubba, you upset because the evidence isn't falling your way?

Again, why does the ATF say it was legal? According to you it was an illegal purchase and he committed a felony. (And, yes, it would be an illegal purchase if he lied on the form.)

Is confused, I thought everyone was talking about Steven Kazmierczak?

J is hopping around the NIU/Cho issues to make up claims and present them as "facts" to try and confuse things.

You missed a bit. "You seem to think". I only said how you seem. It's an assessment of your behavior. I notice now you're picking nits. What's the matter, Bubba, you upset because the evidence isn't falling your way?

Again, why does the ATF say it was legal? According to you it was an illegal purchase and he committed a felony. (And, yes, it would be an illegal purchase if he lied on the form.)

*sigh* Obviously it doesn't matter what evidence I present. You're going to change topics, lie about what I said, and rely on a talking head instead of actually looking at it.

And now you change topics again.

You've proven yourself to be nothing but a flat out disingenuous liar in this thread J.

I really shouldn't expect anything more on NSG though.

Wow, just completely off now, huh? How about your just stick to the topic, friend. Let's see you provide some evidence this was an illegal purchase. Every authority who actually knows claims the opposite, so let's see what you've seen that they haven't.

Don't get upset. Take a breath and try using evidence instead of rhetoric. (You can include rhetoric. I like rhetoric. Include evidence, too. Hollow rhetoric is a waste of time.)

J is hopping around the NIU/Cho issues to make up claims and present them as "facts" to try and confuse things.

Sorry, actually, J was doing that by accident. Every time I said "Cho" I was intending to talk about NIU. I don't really keep track of their names. It was a mistake.

It doesn't change the point. Kaz got the firearms entirely legally according to the ATF.

Is confused, I thought everyone was talking about Steven Kazmierczak?

I was confusing the two names. Kazmierczak was who I was talking about the entire time. I simply superimposed one name over the other accidentally. It doesn't change the point, however.

So I call you on your BS and it was an "accident".

After high school, Kazmierczak's parents had sent him to Thresholds-Mary Hill House, a psychiatric treatment center for teens, to get therapy and medication for what was described as "unruly" behavior.

"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem."


Yep, he was there "voluntarily".

You keep believing that and trusting the talking heads.

Committal is a legal term, meaning a joint legal/medical decision to deprive liberty for the protection of the subject or of others. Parents don't have the power to commit, they can leave their child in the custody of another and require them to stay there but they can't commit.

Christ I wish Neo Art was around.

Sorry, actually, J was doing that by accident. Every time I said "Cho" I was intending to talk about NIU. I don't really keep track of their names. It was a mistake.

It doesn't change the point. Kaz got the firearms entirely legally according to the ATF.

So I call you on your BS and it was an "accident".

After high school, Kazmierczak's parents had sent him to Thresholds-Mary Hill House, a psychiatric treatment center for teens, to get therapy and medication for what was described as "unruly" behavior.

"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem."


Yep, he was there "voluntarily".

You keep believing that and trusting the talking heads.

So I call you on your BS and it was an "accident".

Amusing. It's not possible that I accidentally said "Cho". It was obvious that all along we were talking about Kaz. I accidentally said the wrong name. Meanwhile, the point stands.

Cling to every victory you can, because you're not going to get anywhere on substance, are you?


After high school, Kazmierczak's parents had sent him to Thresholds-Mary Hill House, a psychiatric treatment center for teens, to get therapy and medication for what was described as "unruly" behavior.


"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem."


Yep, he was there "voluntarily".

You keep believing that and trusting the talking heads.

Prove he wasn't. It does not give any indication that he was legally in custody of his parents. In fact, since it was after high school, it's pretty guaranteed he wasn't. As such, his parents couldn't send him involuntarily.

But, hey, your extrapolation sure does override the claims of every legal authority. I mean, why wouldn't it? You do understand the law better than the SA for IL and the ATF. Of course you do.

Now, you said that the institution said he was committed. Please quote that.

Committal is a legal term, meaning a joint legal/medical decision to deprive liberty for the protection of the subject or of others. Parents don't have the power to commit, they can leave their child in the custody of another and require them to stay there but they can't commit.

Christ I wish Neo Art was around.

Oh, I'm glad he isn't. This is more fun. I love the internet banter, where our little friend here can claim that he knows better than the ATF and SA. What fun would it be if we chased him out of the thread?

Oh, I'm glad he isn't. This is more fun. I love the internet banter, where our little friend here can claim that he knows better than the ATF and SA. What fun would it be if we chased him out of the thread?

Ah, and now the demeaning comments. I can do those to. Does an "internet victory" mean that much in your life?

You've lied over and over in this thread about what I've claimed and demanded "proof" even when it's right in front of you.

You've claimed that he was there voluntarily. I've yet to see your evidence.

I'll keep waiting.

Tag your it.

So, we just had another shooting at NIU. I'm not going to count the number of people killed in the US in killing sprees like this since 2001, but I think it is rather greater than the number killed by terrorists in the same area over the same time period.

The average American seems to be a lot more likely to get shot by some other American with issues than be killed by someone with a bomb.

So is it time for a "declaration of war" against the school/mall shooters? What would you say are some good policy responses to this sort of thing? Is there something that can be done, or are you happy to just accept it as a part of life?

PS: Gun control is of course a relevant issue, but try not to make it the only topic of the thread, okay? There's another one for that around right now.

Shooting sprees are a deadly enemy to the safety of the people. We cannot stand for the slaughter of dozens of innocent civilians. In fact, all violence is intolerable! We can no longer stand and watch! We must launch a War on Wars!

Let's get back to the point.

However, according to IL law, he can legally own a firearm.

Meanwhile, it's my understanding that the federal law only pertains to involuntary incarceration. You'll notice the term "adjudicated" and "committed". I've seen no evidence that it was involuntary. They say his parents placed him, but having known people who ended up in hospitals for similar reasons, it's voluntary. He was an adult. Without actions by the court, he can't be committed.

Wrong again:
"..Or have you ever been committed to a mental institution".

He should have answered "Yes" which invalidated him from legally purchasing every single gun he bought.

If that's your "understanding", then cite the relevant laws.

I'm not lying. I'm clarifying for someone else who is confused. In some states, you don't have to fill out the ATF form. It's only required to be filled out federally if you purchase from a licensed dealer. There is a difference in the usage of the two things, friend, whether you recognize it or not. Legally, I could purchase a firearm, in some states, and give it to someone with a legal state license.

Meanwhile, here is an explanation for you of the question -

http://www.gunowners.org/ne0703.htm

Notice this -

This term means a formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term also includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness, and commitments for other reasons such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or any voluntary admission to a mental institution.

Like I said, if you don't know what you're talking about, just stop talking.

As I've shown, according to the ATF, it MUST be involuntary, something you challenged me on when you first stated it. Rather than simply admitting you're wrong, you changed tactics to claiming his parents committed him. When asked for evidence, you offer extrapolations.

You've been show that legally an adult cannot be committed by his parents and we know he was an adult after high school.

So you wanna show this was an illegal purchase or shall we just keep giggling?

Ah, and now the demeaning comments. I can do those to. Does an "internet victory" mean that much in your life?

You've lied over and over in this thread about what I've claimed and demanded "proof" even when it's right in front of you.

You've claimed that he was there voluntarily. I've yet to see your evidence.

I'll keep waiting.

Tag your it.

Oh, i'm "it" alright. Show me where I lied? You've shown me to be wrong twice. Once when I cited the wrong name. And once where I asked for proof that gun ownership had the same requirements as purchase. The second one you more than adequately proved.

Now, show where I've lied. This should be interesting.

As far as burden of proof, you're claiming he committed a felony. Why would the burden of proof be on me to show he didn't?

Let's get back to the point.


As I've shown, according to the ATF, it MUST be involuntary, something you challenged me on when you first stated it. Rather than simply admitting you're wrong, you changed tactics to claiming his parents committed him. When asked for evidence, you offer extrapolations.

You've been show that legally an adult cannot be committed by his parents and we know he was an adult after high school.

So you wanna show this was an illegal purchase or shall we just keep giggling?

You know he was an adult after HS? I graduated at 17. Was I an adult? Or are you just assuming?

Show your evidence.

You've yet to show it was "voluntary".

Show your evidence.

I never challenged on the "involuntary" rule. That's another invention in your mind.

If you can prove otherwise. Show your evidence.

I'll keep waiting.

Tag your it.

Oh, i'm "it" alright. Show me where I lied? You've shown me to be wrong twice. Once when I cited the wrong name. And once where I asked for proof that gun ownership had the same requirements as purchase. The second one you more than adequately proved.

Now, show where I've lied. This should be interesting.

As far as burden of proof, you're claiming he committed a felony. Why would the burden of proof be on me to show he didn't?

You stated I claimed causality for more guns = less crime internationally. I made no such claim. You repeatedly said I did w/o any reference.

You claimed I stated causality for the IL laws and the shootings. I didn't.

You lied.

I'm now going to leave work so you have successfully "chased me off this thread". You may now go and masturbate over your "victory".

You know he was an adult after HS? I graduated at 17. Was I an adult? Or are you just assuming?

I stated before that it doesn't matter whether he ws an adult or not at the time he went into the facility, parents can't commit a 5 year old on their own, all they can do is place them in the custody of another.

I think people are misunderstanding what committal is. It is a process that involves qulified doctors and legal professionals all agreeing that a person is a danger to themselves or others due to mental problems and having them confined for treatment. Parents can't do this alone.

The reasons parents can do this is that a committal has far reaching consequences, such as never being able to buy a gun in the US if your parents were to decide to commit you at age 6 for being a bit naughty, for example.

You stated I claimed causality for more guns = less crime internationally.

No, I didn't. I said you claimed that more gunes = less crime. I said that if it were true, it would always be true, so you'd have to show international statistics.


I made no such claim. You repeatedly said I did w/o any reference.

I did? Quote me.


You claimed I stated causality for the IL laws and the shootings. I didn't.

You lied.

I did? Quote exactly what I said and IF I actually said you stated something, I'll quote it.

No, I didn't. I said you claimed that more gunes = less crime. I said that if it were true, it would always be true, so you'd have to show international statistics.

Which I didn't say.

You lied.




I did? Quote exactly what I said and IF I actually said you stated something, I'll quote it.[/QUOTE]

That's nice.

I'm now going to leave work so you have successfully "chased me off this thread". You may now go and masturbate over your "victory".

These grapes don't seem quite ripe...

As to the OP's original question: it seems we have actually learned something from Virginia Tech. NIU managed to find and stop the gunman relatively quickly. Of course, stopping these lunatics altogether would require prevention, not just a quick reaction time. As people have been saying through out this entire thread, that would mean better laws, more checks, etc. Same old, same old.

You know he was an adult after HS? I graduated at 17. Was I an adult? Or are you just assuming?

Show your evidence.

No problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Kazmierczak

He graduated in 1998. He was 18 in August. He was in the institution for a year. He at the very least would have had to have been an adult for almost all of that time. As such, legally, he couldn't be put in there against his will without an act from the state. I cannot show no such act occurred, because, well, I can't demonstrate a lack of evidence. Thus the burden is on you.


You've yet to show it was "voluntary".

Show your evidence.

Hmmm... So I have to prove he didn't commit a crime or your claim that he did stands? Hmmmm... you seem to have little understanding of burden of proof.

Here's my evidence. If he, as an adult, which I've proved he was during (at least) most of his time in an institution, was in an institution involuntarily there would be an order to commit him. Here's a link to show there is no such order.

...

...

Notice there's no link. You know why? Because I can't prove that evidence doesn't exist. That's why it's on you to show he was committed. According to all sources we can find, he wasn't.


I never challenged on the "involuntary" rule. That's another invention in your mind.

If you can prove otherwise. Show your evidence.

I'll keep waiting.

Tag your it.
I already did. I quoted you in this post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13462991&postcount=319 .

Me:Meanwhile, it's my understanding that the federal law only pertains to involuntary incarceration.
You: If that's your "understanding", then cite the relevant laws.

Whoops.

Joc, why are you still wasting your time? This is like beating your head into a brick wall. This guy is never going to admit he doesnt know waht the fuck hes talking about.

Which I didn't say.

You lied.

You didn't? Hmmm... let's get some quotes.


CCW has not been shown to increase crime rates yet HAS been shown to stop incidents like this.

You realize that if it doesn't increase crime and it stops some crimes, that this would be an overal decrease, yes? You did say it. So now that we've established that I didn't lie about that and I never said the first thing you claimed I lied about, what's next. Let's see some more of my "lies".

I'm thoroughly enjoying this.


That's nice.

Ah, in other words, you can't. Lack of evidence seems to be all you've got pretty consistently.

I stated before that it doesn't matter whether he ws an adult or not at the time he went into the facility, parents can't commit a 5 year old on their own, all they can do is place them in the custody of another.

I think people are misunderstanding what committal is. It is a process that involves qulified doctors and legal professionals all agreeing that a person is a danger to themselves or others due to mental problems and having them confined for treatment. Parents can't do this alone.

The reasons parents can do this is that a committal has far reaching consequences, such as never being able to buy a gun in the US if your parents were to decide to commit you at age 6 for being a bit naughty, for example.

Ah, yes. I missed that bit earlier, but, yes, good point. I thought you were only talking about involuntary treatment. Yeah, I'd agree with that, though admittedly, I don't read all that much on this subject.

Ah, yes. I missed that bit earlier, but, yes, good point. I thought you were only talking about involuntary treatment. Yeah, I'd agree with that, though admittedly, I don't read all that much on this subject.

I freely admit that my knowledge is based on British law but there is generally a large overlap between our legal systems.

Unless he was already there. Nice try but no dice.


Which you havent proved. Besides, once he turned 18 he could have left on his own, as a court didnt place him there.


Once again I understand it perfectly. I've shown he was committed by his parents, not himself, and that he therefore lied on the form.

No, youve shown he didnt like the idea of being committed, but he could have had a change of heart.

Now go masturbate some more. Make sure to wipe off the screen.


Childish personal attacks, the mark of the truly desperate and those who know theyve lost.


No matter what you say, the SA and the ATF have said in so many words that everything youve said on this matter is bullshit. And Im going to believe them over you.

Tell me more about the 6 month thing.

Read my post. I said 5 years. Ive already adressed that. When I said the 6 months that one time, and then corrected myself, I was thinking about something else.



Tell me more about how you know more about this whole thing than the ATF and IL SA.

Home again.

No problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Kazmierczak

He graduated in 1998. He was 18 in August. He was in the institution for a year. He at the very least would have had to have been an adult for almost all of that time. As such, legally, he couldn't be put in there against his will without an act from the state. I cannot show no such act occurred, because, well, I can't demonstrate a lack of evidence. Thus the burden is on you.

Unless he was already there. Nice try but no dice.


Hmmm... So I have to prove he didn't commit a crime or your claim that he did stands? Hmmmm... you seem to have little understanding of burden of proof.

Once again I understand it perfectly. I've shown he was committed by his parents, not himself, and that he therefore lied on the form.

Here's my evidence. If he, as an adult, which I've proved he was during (at least) most of his time in an institution, was in an institution involuntarily there would be an order to commit him. Here's a link to show there is no such order.

...

...

Notice there's no link. You know why? Because I can't prove that evidence doesn't exist. That's why it's on you to show he was committed. According to all sources we can find, he wasn't.

See above.



I already did. I quoted you in this post http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13462991&postcount=319 .

Me:Meanwhile, it's my understanding that the federal law only pertains to involuntary incarceration.
You: If that's your "understanding", then cite the relevant laws.

Whoops.

Whoops. Try quoting your whole post. You first said he couldn't be committed by his parents then said he could be if he wasn't an adult which he wasn't.

You realize that if it doesn't increase crime and it stops some crimes, that this would be an overal decrease, yes? You did say it. So now that we've established that I didn't lie about that and I never said the first thing you claimed I lied about, what's next. Let's see some more of my "lies".

I'm thoroughly enjoying this.

Hope you have tissues. I didn't say more guns = less crime. Try reading it. I said that it has been shown that CCW has stopped similar incidents. If you want to read that as a universal statement, it shows how disingenuous your own argument is. Kind of like how you claimed it didn't save lives in the middle of a shooting.

Ah, in other words, you can't. Lack of evidence seems to be all you've got pretty consistently.

In other words I'm not going to waste my time looking through 25 pages of thread because you feel like being a lying prick.

Now go masturbate some more. Make sure to wipe off the screen.

Joc, why are you still wasting your time? This is like beating your head into a brick wall. This guy is never going to admit he doesnt know waht the fuck hes talking about.

Tell me more about the 6 month thing.

Kecibukia, I would really like to see some proof that parents can commit their children in the US, I mean legally commit, not just place in a mental health facility, without a court order.

No, I checked it out. You cannot be committed without an act of the court. As such, all the rest of his argument is silly.

Post the source, just so he can tell us he knows better than that authority too:p

I freely admit that my knowledge is based on British law but there is generally a large overlap between our legal systems.

No, I checked it out. You cannot be committed without an act of the court. As such, all the rest of his argument is silly.

Home again.



Unless he was already there. Nice try but no dice.

Really? Can you show me the relevant law? This should be good, since you can't actually commit your child without an act by relevant authority.



Once again I understand it perfectly. I've shown he was committed by his parents, not himself, and that he therefore lied on the form.

Prove it. Prove his parents committed him.



See above.

Prove it.




Whoops. Try quoting your whole post. You first said he couldn't be committed by his parents then said he could be if he wasn't an adult which he wasn't.
Amusing. You're claiming the same thing. Why would you ask me to cite relevant laws if that's what I said? He was 18 for at least most of his time in the institution. Given that, there is no possibly way for him to be there against his will without an act by the court or relevant authority.

Besides, he can't be committed if he's not an adult either. And even if it was just a transfer of custody, which is what I thought, it would end when he reached 18.

But, hey, keep claiming I'm lying, while the quotes show otherwise. That'll really help your credibility.


Hope you have tissues. I didn't say more guns = less crime. Try reading it. I said that it has been shown that CCW has stopped similar incidents. If you want to read that as a universal statement, it shows how disingenuous your own argument is. Kind of like how you claimed it didn't save lives in the middle of a shooting.

So if it doesn't cause more crime and it stops even 1 crime, then it wouldn't be decrease? Where did you learn math?


In other words I'm not going to waste my time looking through 25 pages of thread because you feel like being a lying prick.

Now go masturbate some more. Make sure to wipe off the screen.

Well, it sure looks like you're interested in rational debate. Why are you so angry if you're right? Oh, because you aren't.

Post the source, just so he can tell us he knows better than that authority too:p

The burden of proof is on him. He knows he can't provide it, that's why he's pissed. I'm not laying off though. Let him keep going. I'm enjoying it.

Kecibukia, please fan down the flames by the way. I'm actually having fun, but if you aren't walk away. Or take a breath. Count to 10 or whatever you have to do. It's pretty mild, so I'm not inclined to report it, but I don't see how it helps you to continue, either.

Here's what I'd like proof of.

1. That a parent can legally commit a child to a mental health institution.

2. That, in the event that minor was committed to a mental health institution by the sole authority of their parents (Something we've seen no evidence for it being possible) that it would continue after his/her 18th birthday.

3. That the NIU shooter was ever committed.

4. That the purchase of the firearms used in the NIU shooting was illegal.

All of these have been claimed by Kecibukia and all of them have not been support.

Our support that none of them are true is that every authority has claimed his ownership of firearms was legal.

Here's the bottom line. If anyone really thinks about it you'll know its true.

Most citizens are basically good people. So if you allow them to carry guns away from the home, then you are arming the goodguys...so the goodguys with guns will out number the bad guys. Simple logic

Now I have the most basic of arms in my home, revolvers and shotguns. And I know how to use each. Should an intruder or civil unrest come my way, I am prepared. It seems to me that large magazines and and hi capacity is playing a major factor in these school shootings as well as this so called "Gun free" zone.....I have a two pronged solution that should Deter shootings and also lessen there severity if and when they do occur.

I don't feel so bad about restricting semi auto guns and leaving shotguns and revolvers on the table for citizens. Low maintenence and easy to operate. So allow people to carry revolvers and thin out the supply of semi autos and hi capacity magazines. That way the liklihood of somone just walking in and spraying with a 30 round mag is lessened due to lack of availability. Not guarunteed to work but just my opinion. I don't need a 30 round magazine to defend my home against intrusion or civil unrest.

In a situation like Columbine if the teachers were allowed handguns, as soon as they hear the shooting start everyone hits the deck, teacher locks the door and arms him/herself....and if the shooter comes along THEN AND ONLY THEN does the armed teacher engage him in a defensive manner. Since students were on the floor the risk of accidental shooting would be minimal. In Columbine, the shooters went room to room and door to door execution style. I strongly believe shootings would have been lessened had the teachers been armed.

In a situation like the mall in Utah, It was two armed citizens who really saved the day. Granted one was an off duty cop who had training, but his wife had a handgun as well. And she locked the doors to the shop she was in and waited defensively, effectively protecting herself and ALL the people inside. Thats how armed citizens should go about it. Secure your location and engage the shooter if and ONLY IF and when necessary to defend yourself. If everyone does something like this chances increase that somone will take him down as he goes door to door or room to room.

Lets face it..criminals are armed and the average police response time is 3-4 minutes and thats not including the time it takes for the police to enter a building and find the shooter. So what do we do? Wait for salvation like helpless little sheep as Anti Gun Advocates say we should? Or do we fight back and Protect ourselves?!

America (Or England for that matter) would never tolerate agression from an outside source. We would fight back immediately...we would not wait for the UN to convene on the matter and send help...HELL NO! We would use our own forces to repel such agression at once! And every citizen has or *Should* have that same right on a smaller but equally important scale.

DAN

Unfortunately, I don't think a "war" on violence makes much sense. It's like fucking for virginity. This is a very serious issue, and I think that the USA should seriously reconsider "the right to bear arms". However, it does remind me of this quote from the Simpsons (in this episode they ban guns)... "Now we can rob the bank, give the money to the poor, rob the poor, and shoot the money!"

like fucking for virginity.

...you mean you dont do that?

...you mean you dont do that?

I tried it once. It didn't work. Now I just have sex for crack.

QFT

I have, several times. Have you ever been held at gunpoint? I have. Both experiences taught me of the extreme danger that firearms represent. It was highly trained and experiences law enforcement officers who held me at gunpoint




Whaaat.....


Explain!

I think that one of the keys in lies in your phraseology. Everything we do is a 'war' on something. We continue to approach everything with aggression so it seems no wonder that that aggression would continue to manifest itself in these ways.

It's not our guns, but it's our attitudes about guns that is the problem. Way back when on this board even some state passed a 'concealed carry' law and posters tauted it as a reason why people in that state would be more polite. Seriously, polite. To suggest that rudeness might get you shot. While this might not be the predominant feeling of the 'average' gun user, it isn't as uncommon and one would hope.

The gun is the panacea to too many social problems for so many people. Far too many people think that the solution is for everyone to be strapped. This is a ridiculously dangerous world, an armed populace just looking for a reason to need that gun. At that point I'm not worried about someone shooting me on purpose but being caught in some dumbass cowboy's cross fire.

There are countries that have more guns than we do and don't have these problems, the gun isn't the only element required. It's the attitude that we need it, that it is any kind of solution. As long as we live under that illusion, people will continue to use it as one.



These people all had psychological issues that might have been treated if they'd had increased access to counseling.



A few of the kids have reported bullying on other kids, and were told by administration to "quit gossiping" or "stop being tattlers"


QFT


You think that we are a bunch of wannabe cowboys, but in reality nothing can be further from the truth. I know how to handle guns, I know when I'm suppose to use it, and I know the laws, rules and regulation concerning guns and CCWs. I'm not going around with a cowboy hat and shooting everything in sight.


That's not the point. The point is that in a mass violence situation, one actually wants to have as few shooters as possible. Collateral damage and injury to persons and property will be higher with a greater number of shooters. Also, police have a hard enough time securing large groups of people when there is only one shooter. Imagine the horror of trying to secure a school or university of people who are all carrying.

We aren't talking about a single man or woman defending his or her self in a dark alley at night. We're not taking about the sport of target shooting in a highly controlled environment. We're talking about masses of hundreds or even thousands (universities are big places) of people all drawing weapons at once. That has disaster written all over it.

Seriously, consider a frightened individual carrying a gun while thinking "someone else carrying a gun is trying to hurt me." Now, drop this person into a large group of other people carrying guns and thinking the same thing. Are these people really going to stop and try to figure out who the actual rogue assailant is before taking action? Or are they just going to all blow each other away?

If one wants practical examples of the sorts of societies where everyone has to carry in order to feel safe, take a trip to Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. This isn't a matter of Second Amendment or any other rights. This is a matter of the basic fabric of one's society. All of these school shootings show that something is very seriously broken.


Tell me, have you even handled a gun, and I'm not talking about when your daddy showed you how to fire a rifle, I mean have you actually went down to a firing range and shoot a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle by yourself?


I have, several times. Have you ever been held at gunpoint? I have. Both experiences taught me of the extreme danger that firearms represent. It was highly trained and experienced law enforcement officers who held me at gunpoint, but I can testify from personal experience that when guns are drawn, adrenaline is rushing and minds are racing. You cannot -- YOU CANNOT -- know how you will act or make decisions in a dangerous situation in the "wild" based on how you acted or made decisions in the relatively safe and highly controlled environment of a firing range. Trying to do so, with all due respect, is to be an arrogant fool, exactly the sort of "cowboy" that will get himself or others killed when he tries to be a hero.

I support your right to keep and bear arms. I support highly trained, licensed, and highly regulated carry laws. But I've been there, I've done that, and I've shit the bricks. I know better than to pretend that I can be some kind of superman.

(why was I held by the police? Well, I was riding the bus to school one day. Also on the bus was a person being sought for armed robbery. We were both so tall, the same gender, and wearing similar clothes. Crap. :D )


No, because I doubt I would be a stupid enough to "get one wrong". ...I have thought long and hard about this...


One doesn't have to think long and hard about this. One need only stare down the wrong end of a barrel; it takes all of two seconds to put it all together. Until you've done so, all this macho talk about "I'll do what I need to do" is exactly that. Macho talk.

QFT



That's not the point. The point is that in a mass violence situation, one actually wants to have as few shooters as possible. Collateral damage and injury to persons and property will be higher with a greater number of shooters. Also, police have a hard enough time securing large groups of people when there is only one shooter. Imagine the horror of trying to secure a school or university of people who are all carrying.

We aren't talking about a single man or woman defending his or her self in a dark alley at night. We're not taking about the sport of target shooting in a highly controlled environment. We're talking about masses of hundreds or even thousands (universities are big places) of people all drawing weapons at once. That has disaster written all over it.

If one wants practical examples of the sorts of societies where everyone has to carry in order to feel safe, take a trip to Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq. This isn't a matter of Second Amendment or any other rights. This is a matter of the basic fabric of one's society. All of these school shootings show that something is very seriously broken.

But... but here I thought more guns mean we will all be safer! My world is turned upside down! :eek: :p

Whaaat.....


Explain!


(why was I held by the police? Well, I was riding the bus to school one day. Also on the bus was a person being sought for armed robbery. We were both so tall, the same gender, and wearing similar clothes. Crap. )


The entire ordeal only took about 15 minutes. As I was being questioned, a witness came forward at the scene of the robbery, describing the suspect as having a shaved head. The other guy standing next me to in cuffs had a shaved head, but I was in need of a haircut.

"Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day, sir."

Remember kids, when the guns are drawn, shut your mouth and do what you're told. :D

But... but here I thought more guns mean we will all be safer! My world is turned upside down! :eek: :p

If anything, the actual number of guns out and about is irrelevant. The truth is that the solution to mental illness and mass violence is not simply more people with more guns. Neither is the solution to mental illness and mass violence simply fewer people with fewer guns.

If a society cares properly for its mentally ill and resolves the social causes of crime and violence to the greatest extent possible, ideally, people can have as many guns as they want.

People focusing on "gun rights" or "gun control" are completely missing the actual problem.

If anything, the actual number of guns out and about is irrelevant. The truth is that the solution to mental illness and mass violence is not simply more people with more guns. Neither is the solution to mental illness and mass violence simply fewer people with fewer guns.

If a society cares properly for its mentally ill and resolves the social causes of crime and violence to the greatest extent possible, ideally, people can have as many guns as they want.

People focusing on "gun rights" or "gun control" are completely missing the actual problem.
Shhhh! You're not supposed to interrupt the wing nuts with reasonableness when we've got a full head of righteous steam! ;)

If anything, the actual number of guns out and about is irrelevant. The truth is that the solution to mental illness and mass violence is not simply more people with more guns. Neither is the solution to mental illness and mass violence simply fewer people with fewer guns.

If a society cares properly for its mentally ill and resolves the social causes of crime and violence to the greatest extent possible, ideally, people can have as many guns as they want.

People focusing on "gun rights" or "gun control" are completely missing the actual problem.

I would love if we would actually treat those with mental issues instead of tossing them on the street when they can't afford medication or hospitals have no funds to treat people who need it. If more programs could be launched to help those in poverty, living in crime filled neighborhoods but i doubt it will happen anytime soon. the best we can do is to try and limit the number of weapons that can be used against others. Controlling these weapons must be possible if we would ever care to seriously try instead of crying "2nd Amendment!" whenever one tries to make a move. Bah.

I would love if we would actually treat those with mental issues instead of tossing them on the street when they can't afford medication or hospitals have no funds to treat people who need it. If more programs could be launched to help those in poverty, living in crime filled neighborhoods but i doubt it will happen anytime soon. the best we can do is to try and limit the number of weapons that can be used against others.


Surely the best we can do is address the actual problem. It must be possible if we would ever care to seriously try.

At any rate, I don't cry "2nd Amendment" because I don't wish to do anything about crime and violence. I cry it because 1) I am a law abiding citizen of sound mind who has never committed or been convicted of a crime, and 2) I demand that we address the actual problem.

If more people would join me in demanding solutions to the actual problem, I'll bet such solutions would "happen anytime soon."

If any thing, continuing to focus one's efforts and resources on irrelevant tangents actually takes away from what could be spend addressing mental illness and other social problem. The NRA and Gun Control Inc. are both distractions and thus contributors to the problem; they are not second best "solutions."

Maybe it's the environment I was brought up in, but somehow I don't think that I'd feel particularly safe in a place were everyone was carrying a gun.

The entire ordeal only took about 15 minutes. As I was being questioned, a witness came forward at the scene of the robbery, describing the suspect as having a shaved head. The other guy standing next me to in cuffs had a shaved head, but I was in need of a haircut.

"Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day, sir."

Remember kids, when the guns are drawn, shut your mouth and do what you're told. :D

I had a similar experience except my police record actually had that my real name was an alliance for a person who was wanted and considered armed and dangerous. It was actually in Champaign, IL, the place where this guy was from. It took much longer than 15 minutes and they refused to come up and secure me so I was terrified I was going to scratch my nose and get shot.

Addressing the root of the problem is appropriate but I see no fault in going after what the result of our social problems are. Gun violence is a terrible thing our country has to deal with and I don't see why we should restrain ourselves in going after what causes such misery because people think they have a 'right' to have them. My sympathies for gun owners is quite limited. I simply don't see a need to be in position of something that's purpose is to kill others. I know many disagree with this but there you have it. Every time you hear of yet another homicide by a firearm this position should be reaffirmed.

...you mean you dont do that?

No, generally to keep virginity one would avoid having sex.

But I personally don't do that.

Addressing the root of the problem is appropriate but I see no fault in going after what the result of our social problems are. Gun violence is a terrible thing our country has to deal with and I don't see why we should restrain ourselves in going after what causes such misery because people think they have a 'right' to have them. My sympathies for gun owners is quite limited. I simply don't see a need to be in position of something that's purpose is to kill others. I know many disagree with this but there you have it. Every time you hear of yet another homicide by a firearm this position should be reaffirmed.

Oh BS to the max.

Why'd the shooter go out and kill the victim? Maybe the dude robbed him? Killed his friend? Has sex with his significant other? Raped his significant other? Maybe it was an accident? Maybe...you get it?

There are so many reasons why people kill others-and if they really want someone killed they'll do it-with a gun or not. There is no sense in placing everyday law abiding citizens at a handicap against would be attackers.

Maybe it's the environment I was brought up in, but somehow I don't think that I'd feel particularly safe in a place were everyone was carrying a gun.

I've never felt unsafe around guns.

Oh BS to the max.

Why'd the shooter go out and kill the victim? Maybe the dude robbed him? Killed his friend? Has sex with his significant other? Raped his significant other? Maybe it was an accident? Maybe...you get it?

There are so many reasons why people kill others-and if they really want someone killed they'll do it-with a gun or not. There is no sense in placing everyday law abiding citizens at a handicap against would be attackers.

I keep hearing this, but in countries where there are no guns there are almost no bouts with gun violence, thus no handicap.

Some of these things are planned and are just gonna happen no matter what, but lots of them are crimes of passion. My aunt's sister and husband died because he was waving a gun around in a rage and it went off and killed her so he killed himself. That's not all cases, but it happens enough, that ignoring it is ignoring a major part of the problem.

Oh BS to the max.

Why'd the shooter go out and kill the victim? Maybe the dude robbed him? Killed his friend? Has sex with his significant other? Raped his significant other? Maybe it was an accident? Maybe...you get it?

There are so many reasons why people kill others-and if they really want someone killed they'll do it-with a gun or not. There is no sense in placing everyday law abiding citizens at a handicap against would be attackers.

You are missing the point. I don't believe that we should be in possession of something that has no other use than to kill others. Period. The fact that you can kill people with other objects is irrelevant.

You are missing the point. I don't believe that we should be in possession of something that has no other use than to kill others. Period. The fact that you can kill people with other objects is irrelevant.

So the only use for a gun is to kill people?

So the only use for a gun is to kill people?

Well, for a pistol, yeah.

So the only use for a gun is to kill people?

So I have to actually say "except those meant for hunting and the like?" Fine. but when we talk about guns we are primarily talking about handguns yes? Meant for "self defense"? Which are specifically made to kill people.

Keep in mind, I'm not for or against using crime as a reason for gun control.

So I have to actually say "except those meant for hunting and the like?" Fine. but when we talk about guns we are primarily talking about handguns yes? Meant for "self defense"? Which are specifically made to kill people.

What is wrong with a law abiding citizen possessing a firearm for self defense?

EDIT: I'm not talking about CHPs.

Oh, so people can't own swords or knives then, since they kill people. Or cars. Or nails. or hammers.


Everyone should just live in rubber rooms, or in big bubbles, and take happy pills, and frolic in fields right?

What else can you do with guns? Hunt, target practice, and collect. Easy.

I DO believe people have the right to own guns in the US, and I don't give a damn about how other countries handle the issue. We have the right to own guns to defend lives, family, and property. That won't ever change.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but if you aren't even going to bother to read my post then why should I bother responding to you?

Collect eh? I suppose we could collect nuclear weapons as well, doesn't mean we will use them, after all. :rolleyes:

You are missing the point. I don't believe that we should be in possession of something that has no other use than to kill others. Period. The fact that you can kill people with other objects is irrelevant.

Oh, so people can't own swords or knives then, since they kill people. Or cars. Or nails. or hammers.


Everyone should just live in rubber rooms, or in big bubbles, and take happy pills, and frolic in fields right?

What else can you do with guns? Hunt, target practice, and collect. Easy.

I DO believe people have the right to own guns in the US, and I don't give a damn about how other countries handle the issue. We have the right to own guns to defend lives, family, and property. That won't ever change.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but if you aren't even going to bother to read my post then why should I bother responding to you?

Collect eh? I suppose we could collect nuclear weapons as well, doesn't mean we will use them, after all. :rolleyes:

How is collecting 100 year old rifles different from collecting 100 year old lamps?

Well, for a pistol, yeah.

So what?

So I have to actually say "except those meant for hunting and the like?" Fine. but when we talk about guns we are primarily talking about handguns yes? Meant for "self defense"? Which are specifically made to kill people.

When I think of guns, I think of rifles, not pistols. But when I hear gun crime, I think pistols, yes. Pistols are great self defense weapons, so they should, and will, remain legal.

How is collecting 100 year old rifles different from collecting 100 year old lamps?

I love the equivocation arguments. Cuz, of course, the big crime problem is that people are killing each other with 100-year-old rifles.

So what?

I love this. It's almost like it's painful for gun nuts to be reasonable. A question was asked. I answered it. That's what.

When I think of guns, I think of rifles, not pistols. But when I hear gun crime, I think pistols, yes. Pistols are great self defense weapons, so they should, and will, remain legal.

They're also great murder weapons. Absent them as a murder weapon, they wouldn't be necessary for self-defense.

Gun nuts are never going to win this argument on self-defense.

How is collecting 100 year old rifles different from collecting 100 year old lamps?

Are these 100 year old rifles going to be used for "home defense"?


Bah, the guy just irritated me with his response, clearly didn't bother to read what I posted. Assumed he meant "collecting" modern fully functional weaponry. If not we can toss that into the exceptions. But then hunting rifles and antiques aren't really the cause of the debate so I really see it as a distraction to what IS the issue, which is those turned against other human beings.

I love the equivocation arguments. Cuz, of course, the big crime problem is that people are killing each other with 100-year-old rifles.

He mentioned firearm collecting in what I thought a derogatory way.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion but if you aren't even going to bother to read my post then why should I bother responding to you?

Collect eh? I suppose we could collect nuclear weapons as well, doesn't mean we will use them, after all. :rolleyes:

You are saying that you don't want guns because they kill people, and were designed for killing.

Well, so were swords. Should those be banned?

All those other items I listed are awfully dangerous too, you should ban those too, so no one gets hurt, or killed.

As to collecting-why not? Guns are great pieces of history. Some are works of art. So why not?

You are saying that you don't want guns because they kill people, and were designed for killing.

Well, so were swords. Should those be banned?

All those other items I listed are awfully dangerous too, you should ban those too, so no one gets hurt, or killed.

As to collecting-why not? Guns are great pieces of history. Some are works of art. So why not?

And they remain so without the ability to be fired. It's not complcated. Such exclusions have suggested so often one wonders, again, why you're so averse to sticking to the point?

Well, so were swords. Should those be banned?

If suddenly thousands of murders are committed per year using swords then quite possibly. But then this is just a sham argument you're making isn't it?

Actually, he was legally allowed to purchase the gun in IL without lying. The mental health question was simply Have you been in a mental hospital in the last 6 months.


The answer is no. In this case, stricter gun control would have prevented him from buying a gun.

Question 12F of the ATF form 4473 (required when buying a firearm from an FFL) states, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution".

I see nothing in there about 6 months. If he answered yes to that question, then he wouldn't be allowed to purchase the firearm. If his answer was no, but should have been yes, then he is guilty of lying on the form, and he obtained the firearm(s) illegally.

He mentioned firearm collecting in what I thought a derogatory way.

Of course he did. Because it's a silly argument. Gun control has always made room for the kinds of exceptions that would allow one to keep historical rifles and such.

This is my problem with this argument, because there is only ONE position that is supportable in favor of guns and gun nuts seem to so carefully avoid sticking to the point and just keep throwing out nonsensical examples.

If only we had CCW laws then people would be able to stop terrorism, right? Let's ignore that the danger from terrorism is about equal to the danger from lightning and sharks. How about we try to keep the debate in the realm of reason? Sound fair?

Are these 100 year old rifles going to be used for "home defense"?


Of course not. Rifles are a terrible choice for home defense, due to their penetrating power. A 12 gauge loaded with 00 Buckshot would be a much better choice.

Bah, the guy just irritated me with his response, clearly didn't bother to read what I posted. Assumed he meant "collecting" modern fully functional weaponry. If not we can toss that into the exceptions. But then hunting rifles and antiques aren't really the cause of the debate so I really see it as a distraction to what IS the issue, which is those turned against other human beings.

Of course collecting includes fully functional weaponry. Shooting old firearms is fun and educational. In fact, BATFE offers a special license category for collectors that allow them to bypass much of the red tape for FFA weapons.

Question 12F of the ATF form 4473 (required when buying a firearm from an FFL) states, "Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution".

I see nothing in there about 6 months. If he answered yes to that question, then he wouldn't be allowed to purchase the firearm. If his answer was no, but should have been yes, then he is guilty of lying on the form, and he obtained the firearm(s) illegally.

Welcome to the thread. Let me know when you've caught up. Knights has admitted his error shortly after that post.

Meanwhile, the NIU shooter obtained the firearms legally.

Ok, so he was....19 when he was released.


And he was 27 when he bought the guns.


Meaning, he did not lie when he answered that he had not been institutionalized within the last 5 years.

Ergo, he got the guns legally.

Ergo, tighter control would have helped the situation.

Where do you see ANYTHING about a 5 year limit on that or any part of question 12?

Where do you see ANYTHING about a 5 year limit on that or any part of question 12?

Seriously, dude, catch up. He wasn't talking about the ATF form. He was talking about the Illinois law. Regardless, this is already settled. He was never committed.

The real question is: are you ready to spend the rest of your days in jail if you get one wrong and shoot an innocent person?

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Of course he did. Because it's a silly argument. Gun control has always made room for the kinds of exceptions that would allow one to keep historical rifles and such.

This is my problem with this argument, because there is only ONE position that is supportable in favor of guns and gun nuts seem to so carefully avoid sticking to the point and just keep throwing out nonsensical examples.

If only we had CCW laws then people would be able to stop terrorism, right? Let's ignore that the danger from terrorism is about equal to the danger from lightning and sharks. How about we try to keep the debate in the realm of reason? Sound fair?

Of course it's a damned silly argument. That's the point I was making. Open your eyes.

What is wrong with being, as you described, a "Gun Nut"? Firearms rights are very important to me. I enjoy shooting them, cleaning them, and collecting them. If that makes me a "Gun Nut", I wear the mark with pride.

Of course collecting includes fully functional weaponry. Shooting old firearms is fun and educational. In fact, BATFE offers a special license category for collectors that allow them to bypass much of the red tape for FFA weapons.

You forgot "modern". I don't believe murderers are sticking antiques into their waistbands after all. ;)

Of course they would be necessary for self defence if the murder rate was low. There are still muggings, rape, assault, etc.

Even if crime was 0, pistols should still be legal.

Then make a different argument. You cannot show that crime is deterred by gun ownership. The evidence points in both directions, which suggests no direct correllation.

So how about we skip over all the places with lower gun ownership and lower crime and all the places with higher gun ownership and lower crime and vice versa, since it's not going anywhere and since whether it correllates to lower crime or not, that's not why you think it should be legal.

Get down to the real argument and stop beating around the bush.

You forgot "modern". I don't believe murderers are sticking antiques into their waistbands after all. ;)

Ok, modern weaponry is included as well. After all, the basic design for guns the average person can obtain hasn't changed for quite a while.

Of course it's a damned silly argument. That's the point I was making. Open your eyes.

What is wrong with being, as you described, a "Gun Nut"? Firearms rights are very important to me. I enjoy shooting them, cleaning them, and collecting them. If that makes me a "Gun Nut", I wear the mark with pride.

Gun nuts doesn't describe everyone who wants to legalize guns. It's all the liars and fools who pretend like the argument is about historical guns or like they're coming for your shotgun and hunting rifles. The argument is about the weapons that are used for crimes. At least, it is today.

It's a damned annoying argument because gun nuts are so caught up in the slippery slope fallacy that they refuse to deal with reality.

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

And here's why people argue against CCW. Because there are people like the above who don't have any sense of responsibility.

I love this. It's almost like it's painful for gun nuts to be reasonable. A question was asked. I answered it. That's what.



They're also great murder weapons. Absent them as a murder weapon, they wouldn't be necessary for self-defense.

Gun nuts are never going to win this argument on self-defense.

Of course they would be necessary for self defence if the murder rate was low. There are still muggings, rape, assault, etc.

Even if crime was 0, pistols should still be legal.

And they remain so without the ability to be fired. It's not complcated. Such exclusions have suggested so often one wonders, again, why you're so averse to sticking to the point?

Some can still be fired.

I didn't see a point. All I saw was ' oh noez! gunz kill peoplz! dems bad!"

Why not have pistols? Pistols aren't the cause of crime. Poverty is the cause of most crime. So you deal with the real issue, and leave guns alone.

Dude, I saw no argument here, other than guns (pistols i guess), are bad and should be banned.

I say: so the fuck what. They aren't the real problem anyway. You deal.

Um, I didn't say that pistols should be banned at all. Thanks for making my point. You're so used to the "with us/against us" mentality, that you're not even reading.

Again, you've said that even there was no crime at all you'd argue that pistols should be legal, so let's skip right over the self-defense argument and you can make your REAL argument. Try it. We'll pretend like you want to have a rational discussion rather than flinging accusations and acting defensive. K? K.

Then make a different argument. You cannot show that crime is deterred by gun ownership. The evidence points in both directions, which suggests no direct correllation.

So how about we skip over all the places with lower gun ownership and lower crime and all the places with higher gun ownership and lower crime and vice versa, since it's not going anywhere and since whether it correllates to lower crime or not, that's not why you think it should be legal.

Get down to the real argument and stop beating around the bush.

Dude, I saw no argument here, other than guns (pistols i guess), are bad and should be banned.

I say: so the fuck what. They aren't the real problem anyway. You deal.

Ok, modern weaponry is included as well. After all, the basic design for guns the average person can obtain hasn't changed for quite a while.

I can understand that but it doesn't change the reality of what modern firearms are used for. Which is ending the life of others. I can't understand why anyone would want those floating around outside the military and police.

And Trollgaard: so the fuck what? i'd say that they are a problem given the death toll involved.

Some can still be fired.

I didn't see a point. All I saw was ' oh noez! gunz kill peoplz! dems bad!"

And by saying this, you prove you've not read any of my posts. It's amusing and I like making you look silly, but how about you go back and read, and we'll pretend like you can have a reasonable discussion about this.


Why not have pistols? Pistols aren't the cause of crime. Poverty is the cause of most crime. So you deal with the real issue, and leave guns alone.

Ah, we're getting closer. So your argument is that people need to demonstrate the advantage of getting rid of pistols?

I can understand that but it doesn't change the reality of what modern firearms are used for. Which is ending the life of others. I can't understand why anyone would want those floating around outside the military and police.

And Trollgaard: so the fuck what? i'd say that they are a problem given the death toll involved.

Modern firearms can be used for violence, unjustified along with justified. However, the vast majority of firearms owners (of all types) use their firearms for target/skeet shooting. Kind of like archery with gunpowder. I don't see how it is justified to take away firearms from people who enjoy them responsibly because a minority seeks to use them irresponsibly.

Oops, it was the other guy who wanted them banned. My bad.

Why do I think guns should be legal? Because its in the constitution, they are a part of US tradition, they are badass, and you can defend yourself with them.

How's that?

There you go. It's such an easy argument from your side, it's really sad that people refuse to stick to it.

Frankly, the burden of proof is on the other side. You already own guns. If they want to deny you that freedom that have to PROVE a compelling public interest. They can't do it. The evidence is inconclusive. And there you go.

See how easy that is? And just like that you move from gun nut to gun advocate. Yay for progress.

I was mixing up your posts with Utracias.

Wtf? People need to demonstrate what by getting rid of pistols?

Meaning that you're saying that people arguing to get rid of pistols have to demonstrate the advantage. I was pushing you to that argument, because it's a completely reasonable argument.

Oops, it was the other guy who wanted them banned. My bad.

Why do I think guns should be legal? Because its in the constitution, they are a part of US tradition, they are badass, and you can defend yourself with them.

How's that?

The Constitution doesn't seem to be the unassailable document it once was, given all the "not a suicide pact" comments that have been flung around lately. Regardless it is in there which is why they are legal. Doesn't mean i agree though.

Tradition is is an irritating concept that allows people to believe all kinds of nonsense so I really want no part in it for the most part. That badass comment doesn't even deserve a response and previous posts already gave my position on that last.

Um, I didn't say that pistols should be banned at all. Thanks for making my point. You're so used to the "with us/against us" mentality, that you're not even reading.

Again, you've said that even there was no crime at all you'd argue that pistols should be legal, so let's skip right over the self-defense argument and you can make your REAL argument. Try it. We'll pretend like you want to have a rational discussion rather than flinging accusations and acting defensive. K? K.

Oops, it was the other guy who wanted them banned. My bad.

Why do I think guns should be legal? Because its in the constitution, they are a part of US tradition, they are badass, and you can defend yourself with them.

How's that?

And by saying this, you prove you've not read any of my posts. It's amusing and I like making you look silly, but how about you go back and read, and we'll pretend like you can have a reasonable discussion about this.




Ah, we're getting closer. So your argument is that people need to demonstrate the advantage of getting rid of pistols?

I was mixing up your posts with Utracias.

Wtf? People need to demonstrate what by getting rid of pistols?

Well, for a pistol, yeah.

False.

http://www.castbullet.com/hunting/th.htm

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm

http://www.eabco.com/bfus01.html

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Alaska/Handgun_Hunting_the_Alaskan_Brown_Bear_02050401.html

I'd provide more, but I need to get some sleep for work tommorow.

First off, these time warps are killing me.

There you go. It's such an easy argument from your side, it's really sad that people refuse to stick to it.

Frankly, the burden of proof is on the other side. You already own guns. If they want to deny you that freedom that have to PROVE a compelling public interest. They can't do it. The evidence is inconclusive. And there you go.

See how easy that is? And just like that you move from gun nut to gun advocate. Yay for progress.

Huzzah!

Meaning that you're saying that people arguing to get rid of pistols have to demonstrate the advantage. I was pushing you to that argument, because it's a completely reasonable argument.

M'kay.

So I have to actually say "except those meant for hunting and the like?" Fine. but when we talk about guns we are primarily talking about handguns yes? Meant for "self defense"? Which are specifically made to kill people.

Not all handguns are made for self defense. There are quite a few hunting handguns, as well as target handguns.

I love the equivocation arguments. Cuz, of course, the big crime problem is that people are killing each other with 100-year-old rifles.

If I owned a firearm that was 100 years old, you could be damn sure I wouldn't be shooting it. The only reason I'd own a firearm that old is if it had sentimental value to me (inherited from a relative, etc) or if it was a rare and valuable collectible.

And they remain so without the ability to be fired. It's not complcated. Such exclusions have suggested so often one wonders, again, why you're so averse to sticking to the point?

Modifying a firearm to be non functional almost always reduces the value of the firearm in the eyes of collectors.

The Constitution doesn't seem to be the unassailable document it once was, given all the "not a suicide pact" comments that have been flung around lately. Regardless it is in there which is why they are legal. Doesn't mean i agree though.

Tradition is is an irritating concept that allows people to believe all kinds of nonsense so I really want no part in it for the most part. That badass comment doesn't even deserve a response and previous posts already gave my position on that last.

In all honesty, too bad. I'm sorry you don't like the 2nd Amendment. I'm sorry you don't like my right to Keep and Bare Arms. I'm sorry you don't want me to own firearms.

I really, really hate to say this, but if you don't like the 2nd Amendment, feel free to move to someplace where Joe/Juan/Jamal Citizen won't be able to own firearms.

Tradition is is an irritating concept that allows people to believe all kinds of nonsense so I really want no part in it for the most part.
Tradition though can be a very compelling reason, especially as TSI pointed out, most guns in the US are of the hunting variety. I was never taught to hunt due to other circumstances, but my family had a tradition of boys doing so with their fathers. I WAS taught to fish though and I am looking forward to teaching my own son how to when he becomes old enough so, yes, peaceful tradition like that is a legit argument.

Tradition though can be a very compelling reason, especially as TSI pointed out, most guns in the US are of the hunting variety. I was never taught to hunt due to other circumstances, but my family had a tradition of boys doing so with their fathers. I WAS taught to fish though and I am looking forward to teaching my own son how to when he becomes old enough so, yes, peaceful tradition like that is a legit argument.

A good portion of Firearms in the US are used for hunting, but hunting is not the only legitimate reason for owning and using firearms. Target shooting, for example, is a worldwide, olympic sport.

But then again, what defines a "Hunting" Rifle? People hunt with everything from a 1863 Springfield rifled Musket to a semiautomatic SKS "assault weapon".

Not all handguns are made for self defense. There are quite a few hunting handguns, as well as target handguns.

See this is why people call you gun nuts, gun nuts. You could very easily attempt a reasonable argument, but instead you work around it rather than face up to it. When hunting and target shooting becomes the most come reason an individual decides they want a handgun, then you'll have a point. Currently, primarily, people purchase handguns for self-defense, and target shooting is an aside. That some people try to make a point by using pistols for hunting really is of a little value to the debate.

Not all handguns are made for self defense. There are quite a few hunting handguns, as well as target handguns.

See this is why people call you gun nuts, gun nuts. You could very easily attempt a reasonable argument, but instead you work around it rather than face up to it. When hunting and target shooting becomes the most come reason an individual decides they want a handgun, then you'll have a point. Currently, primarily, people purchase handguns for self-defense, and target shooting is an aside. That some people try to make a point by using pistols for hunting really is of a little value to the debate.

If handgun hunting became illegal, it would not affect the purchase of handguns whatsoever, and if handguns became illegal it would slow down hunting at all, either. Man up to the argument. It's a shame that gun enthusiasts find it so necessary to dance around the topic.

A good portion of Firearms in the US are used for hunting, but hunting is not the only legitimate reason for owning and using firearms. Target shooting, for example, is a worldwide, olympic sport.

But then again, what defines a "Hunting" Rifle? People hunt with everything from a 1863 Springfield rifled Musket to a semiautomatic SKS "assault weapon".

See, here's the dancing. We're all aware that regardless of usage, some guns were designed for killing people and some for hunting and some for target shooting. How about we stop pretending like we don't know that a large portion of guns were developed and designed around killing people? Pretending its otherwise really is why people get so pissed off about arguing with gun nuts.

Modifying a firearm to be non functional almost always reduces the value of the firearm in the eyes of collectors.

And? It's not uncommon for a right to have some limitations in the interest of public safety. You don't get to yell fire in a theater, for example. However, again, the argument here isn't really about historical rifles, so let's not pretend it is. It's about guns, all guns, not those rare exceptions. Unlesss you can make an argument for owning guns designed around the purpose of being optimal for combat and killing, then you've lost. It's really that simple. Arguing from the fringes just makes it look like you don't have faith in your argument.

We should hand over control of the schools to the private sector. They usually do a better job of preventing bullying.

I don't think bullying is in the same league as shooting someone in the face...

You're all wusses, if you really wanted to go hunting you should us a crossbow, or a halberd, or a pointy stick.

Let's see...

There would be Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Finland and several more European countries that all offer the right to free education, no matter what your age, and no matter what grade of education.
I don't remember that being a right in the US, but I might be mistaken.

Then there would be the Netherlands, where you have the right to not only grow Marihuana, but smoke it as well.

There would be Spain, Sweden, Norway and a good deal more where you have the right to marry your same-sex partner.

There would be Germany and the Netherlands, in which prostitutes have all the rights of regular self-employment, including health benefits and pensions.
Just three very, VERY basic rights, with several examples of countries in which, contrary to the US, citizens have those rights.
None of those countries have a legalised right to own guns.
And yet they all boast virtually all the freedoms of the US, and an additional few in the bargain.


Free education is guaranteed absolutely up until the university level, and extremely cheap education (free for people who cannot afford it) is guaranteed through the second year of university, through the community/jr college system, with a huge number of organizations both public and private offering assistance in paying for the final two years.

Additionally, state universities are extremely affordable, often costing less than 5,000 dollars per year to attend, with options for paying over an extended period of time or receiving grants and scholarships based both on merit and especially on financial need.

How many of those countries charge a tax later in life to defray the cost of paying for university? That would be equivalent to the US system of government subsidized student loans. Those countries are willing to pay for two more years of education than the US- hardly a "right" that one has and the other doesn't.

Germans it may be pointed out are denied freedom of speech and expression vis a vis nazis, and several other countries have laws against blasphemy or 'hate speech' which abridge the freedom of speech which Americans enjoy.

The right to take drugs or engage in prostitution are quite compelling, i'm sure, when weighed against free speech and the right to self defense, which is to say, the right to keep and bear arms.

Gay marriage is permitted in the United States, so this is a moot point of comparison.

Which leaves us with what?

Drugs and prostitution vs free speech and the right to bear arms.

So much freer, indeed :rolleyes:

Try again.

Free education is guaranteed absolutely up until the university level, and extremely cheap education (free for people who cannot afford it) is guaranteed through the second year of university, through the community/jr college system, with a huge number of organizations both public and private offering assistance in paying for the final two years.

Additionally, state universities are extremely affordable, often costing less than 5,000 dollars per year to attend, with options for paying over an extended period of time or receiving grants and scholarships based both on merit and especially on financial need.

High Schools actually cost a lot. There are a lot of fees you pay now. Also, not all State Colleges are cheap. University of Michigan of Illinois, for example ;)


Germans it may be pointed out are denied freedom of speech and expression vis a vis nazis, and several other countries have laws against blasphemy or 'hate speech' which abridge the freedom of speech which Americans enjoy.

Oh please. Dont bring up the nazis to attack Germany. You want to play that way, lets talk about the Alien and Sedation Act, which denied freedom of speech, as did the Espionage Act. Or lets talk about the Japanese Internment Camps. America denied freedoms too.


Gay marriage is permitted in the United States, so this is a moot point of comparison.

Um, no, its not. Sorry. Only is Massachusets. A few other states allow civil unions, but good luck getting those recognized outside that state.

Which leaves us with what?

Drugs and prostitution vs free speech and the right to bear arms.



Its not an either/or option. All those western Europian countries that allow drugs and prostitution also allow free speech.


You really, really fail.

Curious is not? For if we follow this line of reasoning, then a literal interpretation is that everyone can own a firearm in the US as a constitutional right, but not the ammunition. Thus rendering all manner of legally owned firearms rather expensive paperweights and clubs.

How say you then, with this argument? Guns are a protected right, but bullets are not. It follows a strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment no?

The term destructive device is so misleading. A single offensive (meaning explosive damage only) grenade would possibly be called a destructive device. Yet black powder, the common propellant used in bullets, would not. Yet a bag of black powder, even if collected from bullets, could become a destructive device, yet fundamentally being of the same thing.

A quandary is it not?

A firearm works by nature of rapid chemical conversion of a solid into gas by means of ignition. Conventional explosives are exactly the same. Yet somehow there is a rather arbitrary line of distinction between the two, even if the legal bullet happens to be carrying an extra charge where a lead core would be.

How curious.

Mmm, yes, I had failed to account for that. Let us say, plasma weaponry then, of which the application of superheated plasma tends do more damage in a larger area than a finger sized lump of copper sheathed lead.

Out of curiosity, what does ETA stand for? I had always felt it meant Estimated Time Arrival, which surely does not fit in this context.

The right to bear arms, which is to say operate them in their purpose of killing people or animals, requires that ammunition be legal.

Exploding bullets are not legal, since they would escape the protective aegis of simply 'bearing arms' and move into the murky and not specifically protected waters of detonating munitions.

A bag of gunpowder is not a device. A grenade is. A stick of dynamite is also not a device, because it is not a weapon, even though it might be used as one. It is regulated separately from weapons, as was explained to another poster.

The definition and scope of destructive devices is indeed complicated and sometimes misleading, but this is due to deficits in the national firearms act and the actions of the bureau of alcohol tobacco firearms and explosives.

You have a severe and fundamental misunderstanding of a firearm. A firearm uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile, it's basic function is to expel a projectile, not to create chemical reactions. Firearms can be powered by exploding gas instead of exploding solid, as long as the explosion functions to propel a projectile.

Again, if a hypothetical directed energy weapon caused widespread explosive or incinerated damage where it hit, it would probably be identified as a munition or destructive device rather than as a firearm, following its function.

You're the only one who says so, but hey.


Pray tell, are those "already existing laws" in the Constitution? No. By the premise of the argument, those laws have no bearing on the Constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, when no definition is given within the document in question. Nice try, though.

1) For ten dollars, I can prove otherwise, if you're genuinely curious.

2) For this to be a valid argument, you would have to show that the statutory expression of other rights is in keeping with some definition given in the constitution.

For example, which section of the constitution defines the right to free speech or the right to free exercise of religion?

If there are no such parts, then surely you must agree that the rights we are given are defined specifically later on by statutes and by judicial decisions.

Do you agree or disagree?

I will spare asking why you would have posted something that is fundamentally at odds with something else you agree with.

You're all wusses, if you really wanted to go hunting you should us a crossbow, or a halberd, or a pointy stick.

Some of the predictors in the area and up north would not take kindly to you killing them with such

Personally I do not hunt for sport I do so only to protect cattle (and in some cases up north with my family because there was a pack of wolves wandering into town and threatening some of the smaller children in a park a few times)

Personally if I went sport hunting a bow would be more up my ally

A good portion of Firearms in the US are used for hunting, but hunting is not the only legitimate reason for owning and using firearms. Target shooting, for example, is a worldwide, olympic sport.
Target shooting is indeed an Olympic sport, which, if memory serves, requires some very specialized rifles for. That being said, if all you want to do is threaten some paper targets, why do you need a working gun? Paint guns have a nice splatter effect, BB guns work wonders, I personally enjoy rubber band guns just because they are much more difficult to aim and hit a target with over any appreciable distance. Heck, air rifles do much of the same as a real rife in terms of just making paper scared of ya.

Just pointing out that target practice can be done using methods other than pistols, making it a semi-weak argument to lean on.

But then again, what defines a "Hunting" Rifle? People hunt with everything from a 1863 Springfield rifled Musket to a semiautomatic SKS "assault weapon".
In this case, I am working on the premise of a gun utilizing a rifled barrel, NORMALLY designed to be fired from the shoulder (With some exceptions), capable of holding a hunting scope, midrange caliber cartages (Mostly), and a magazine of no more than 3 to 5 rounds. The gun was designed by its manufacturer for hunters and hunting proposes as its mainstay. There's a lot of guns included in that, yes, and some left out (Like muskets or shotguns) that should be included, but I was working towards a nice concept to talk about rather than throw it open to any firearm.

Pretty much a hunting rifle was designed to hunt game animals in mind first and foremost, not for war or self-defense. One CAN go hunting with a Desert Eagle, but I would assume that you would agree that is NOT a hunting rifle.

High Schools actually cost a lot. There are a lot of fees you pay now. Also, not all State Colleges are cheap. University of Michigan of Illinois, for example ;)

Oh please. Dont bring up the nazis to attack Germany. You want to play that way, lets talk about the Alien and Sedation Act, which denied freedom of speech, as did the Espionage Act. Or lets talk about the Japanese Internment Camps. America denied freedoms too.

Um, no, its not. Sorry. Only is Massachusets. A few other states allow civil unions, but good luck getting those recognized outside that state.

Its not an either/or option. All those western Europian countries that allow drugs and prostitution also allow free speech.

You really, really fail.

1) I demand that you provide proof of children are denied a public high school education because they cannot pay for it.

Also, the fact that a handful of colleges are expensive does not have even the faintest bearing on the fact that education is perfectly affordable, especially for poor people who are liable to have it paid for by the government or else by private organizations.

2) [b]This is a perfect example of someone who fails to fully comprehend what he reads, and can be a lesson to everyone else out there with a deficit in reading comprehension.[b/]

Clearly an unequivocally, what was written is that "Germans are denied..." which indicates absolutely that the sentence refers to something happening currently, in the present and continuous tense.

You apparently don't know this, or else you wouldn't have posted what you did, but germans are denied the freedom of speech and expression regarding Nazism. It is illegal to publically support naziism or to display nazi icons or paraphanelia, or to form neo-nazi political groups.

The fact remains that gays can marry or be civilly wed in the united states.

Prostitution is also legal in some jurisdictions within the US, for that matter.

That leaves drugs. Fascinating, I'm sure!

Good luck with that "fail" business there kiddo!

No ammount of tedious, trivial back-and-forth from the K&J spam machine has any bearing on these facts:

The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right which is protected in the second amendment to the constitutiton.

A licensed citizen carrying a concealed handgun could have stopped both the VT and NIU massacres by shooting the respective murderers before they could kill as many people as they did.

A disarmed group of victims has no hope of stopping their killer.

---
University students and alumni, show your support for ending the cruel and deadly failed policy of disarming victims at college campuses, join Students for Concealed Carry on Campus!

http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=2383535699


www.concealedcampus.com

No ammount of tedious, trivial back-and-forth from the K&J spam machine has any bearing on these facts:

The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right which is protected in the second amendment to the constitutiton.
Er, no. The right to bear arms is NOT a fundamental right. Sorry, you have never shown it as such.

A licensed citizen carrying a concealed handgun could have stopped both the VT and NIU massacres by shooting the respective murderers before they could kill as many people as they did.
No, you have not shown this either beyond wishful thinking. A police officer walking by could have done the same.

A disarmed group of victims has no hope of stopping their killer.
Depends on the person, now don't it? Being armed doesn't mean you have a prayer either.

Your 'facts' fail.

Er, no. The right to bear arms is NOT a fundamental right. Sorry, you have never shown it as such.


No, you have not shown this either beyond wishful thinking. A police officer walking by could have done the same.


Depends on the person, now don't it? Being armed doesn't mean you have a prayer either.

Your 'facts' fail.

In the US constitution, it is indeed a fundamental right as explicitly stated in the second amendment. This is not disputable.

The right to self defense is immaterial unless the means to defend yourself are available. You might disagree that people have a right to defend themselves, or claim that it is possible to defend yourself without weapons, but I'm not interested in hearing about it.

I have my convictions, morals and ethics- you are free to have yours.

You're attacking straw men in both of the others.

I said a CCW holder *could* have stopped the attacks, I did not say that _only_ a licensed CCW holder could have stopped them.

Your 'helpful' addition that a policeman walking by could have stopped them does not really bear at all on what I said, now does it? Yes or no?

I didn't mention prayers, I mentioned hopes, which are more akin to chances.

An armed would-be victim has a chance to kill or disable his armed assailant, a disarmed or unarmed one's chances decrease by orders of magnitude.

For my "facts to fail" You would need to prove that what I've said, rather than what you've concocted to trivially argue against, is incorrect.

In the US constitution, it is indeed a fundamental right as explicitly stated in the second amendment. This is not disputable.
The idea that the United States Constitution, worthy a document as it is, constitutes a list of fundamental human rights as you claim is very disputable however. So, yes, your point fails.

The right to self defense is immaterial unless the means to defend yourself are available. You might disagree that people have a right to defend themselves, or claim that it is possible to defend yourself without weapons, but I'm not interested in hearing about it.
I wanna defend myself with a nuclear tipped missile. You might not want to hear about my ideas, but that does not make YOUR ideas somehow magically turn into unarguable facts. Stamping your feet and saying "Yes it does!" doesn't do it either.

I said a CCW holder *could* have stopped the attacks, I did not say that _only_ a licensed CCW holder could have stopped them.

Your 'helpful' addition that a policeman walking by could have stopped them does not really bear at all on what I said, now does it? Yes or no?
Your attempt at deception does not become you with your little adding of the link at the bottom of your previous post. Your opinion is more than clear. In any case though, a policeman COULD have saved the day. So could have a division of Marines. Superman would have been tops in saving lives of course, but I suspect he was busy. Heck, God Himself could have done something, but your 'fact' that a CCW holder COULD have done something is no more than wishful thinking and pure speculation, not a 'fact' as you so stated.

I didn't mention prayers, I mentioned hopes, which are more akin to chances.

An armed would-be victim has a chance to kill or disable his armed assailant, a disarmed or unarmed one's chances decrease by orders of magnitude.

For my "facts to fail" You would need to prove that what I've said, rather than what you've concocted to trivially argue against, is incorrect.
Well, one, you always have chances, that's the thing about probability. Two, you do actually fail as, again, nothing you stated could be actually considered as fact.

So, yes, your facts do fail.

I said a CCW holder *could* have stopped the attacks, I did not say that _only_ a licensed CCW holder could have stopped them.

A licensed CCW holder could. This does not translate to would.

Unless you have been trained in police or military practices during live fire situations, there is no telling how you would react in such a situation.

Also, you assign attributes of improved accuracy, situation analysis than the shooter to the CCW holder, which is not guaranteed under any reasonable case.

And more importantly, when the police arrive, do you really think they will be able to distinguish who started first when they find two or more people shooting at one another?

And more importantly, when the police arrive, do you really think they will be able to distinguish who started first when they find two or more people shooting at one another?
Ooooh, I like that one.

In what proportion of school or other massacres do the police arrive in time to exchange fire with the killer?
Does it matter? They arrive, there's a lot of dead and panicky, crying people running away and in the middle stands the guy with the gun.

Ooooh, I like that one.

In what proportion of school or other massacres do the police arrive in time to exchange fire with the killer?

Ooooh, I like that one.
I'd actually be seriously worried about the panic that would cause as well. You already have a population that is in a panic due to the appearance of one shooter, a CCW doesn't have a license or badge, or any mark of authority to flash to calm down such folks when they pull out their own gun. I could easily see the effect as causing the panicked people to bounce back and forth, meaning much more chance for injuries.

In what proportion of school or other massacres do the police arrive in time to exchange fire with the killer?
What proportion of them has had a CCW there within distance either?

Actually, I will ask YOU this question since Wilgrove seems to have disappeared from the thread, how many cases of a shooting in a gun free zone has a CCW been present (Meaning within actual hitting distance, not across the campus) but unable to act due to such zone laws?

The idea that the United States Constitution, worthy a document as it is, constitutes a list of fundamental human rights as you claim is very disputable however. So, yes, your point fails.


I wanna defend myself with a nuclear tipped missile. You might not want to hear about my ideas, but that does not make YOUR ideas somehow magically turn into unarguable facts. Stamping your feet and saying "Yes it does!" doesn't do it either.


Your attempt at deception does not become you with your little adding of the link at the bottom of your previous post. Your opinion is more than clear. In any case though, a policeman COULD have saved the day. So could have a division of Marines. Superman would have been tops in saving lives of course, but I suspect he was busy. Heck, God Himself could have done something, but your 'fact' that a CCW holder COULD have done something is no more than wishful thinking and pure speculation, not a 'fact' as you so stated.


Well, one, you always have chances, that's the thing about probability. Two, you do actually fail as, again, nothing you stated could be actually considered as fact.

So, yes, your facts do fail.

1) The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution, in keeping with the second part of my claim that the fundamental human right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the second amendment.

2) You reach to far by pretending that I said it was a fundamental human right *because* it was in the constitution. You may disagree that it is a fundamental human right, but I am not going to debate moral facts with you. If your convictions are incompatible with mine there is little to be gained from arguing in circles or at cross purposes. We can agree to disagree on that particular point, like civil and decent people do.

3) Exactly what are you trying to claim, specifically, by accusing me of attempting to deceive?

4) Unless you are prepared to deny that CCW could have prevented murders at VT or NIU, nothing you can add has relevance to what I said. My claim was simple and straightforward, you either agree with it or you don't. Which is it?

5) If you wish to deny that having a gun increases your chances of killing or disabling someone who is shooting at your classmates, please say 'I deny such and such.

If you want to deny for whatever reason that having one or more guns in the hands of the victims at NIU or VT could have prevented people from being killed, please make that explicit.

Hiding behind "fail" spam doesn't cut it. It doesn't become you.

What proportion of them has had a CCW there within distance either?

Actually, I will ask YOU this question since Wilgrove seems to have disappeared from the thread, how many cases of a shooting in a gun free zone has a CCW been present (Meaning within actual hitting distance, not across the campus) but unable to act due to such zone laws?

If none have, it may well be because knowing that school was a victim disarmament zone, people who might otherwise have bought a pistol and earned a permit to carry it did not.

This problem could be rectified by removing victim disarmament laws and making students more aware of their right to keep and bear arms, their right to defend themselves and others without fear of legal sanctions, and the fact that they are realistically the first and last line of defense both for themselves and for their peers.

http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=2383535699

www.concealedcarry.com

1) The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution, in keeping with the second part of my claim that the fundamental human right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the second amendment.
Your claim was that the right to bare arms is a fundamental human right. You have not shown it and attempting to move the goal posts does not excuse you from that.

2) You reach to far by pretending that I said it was a fundamental human right *because* it was in the constitution. You may disagree that it is a fundamental human right I am not going to debate moral facts with you. If your convictions are incompatible with mine there is little to be gained from arguing in circles or at cross purposes. We can agree to disagree on that particular point, like civil and decent people do.
Then you can agree that it is not a fact. You can state that it is indeed a fact that the second amendment of the US Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms, but saying that it is an fundamental human right is not.

3) Exactly what are you trying to claim, specifically, by accusing me of attempting to deceive?
Saying that "Well I didn't say WOULD have" as if your are attempting neutrality and then positing a link for people to demand that gun free zones shows just where your convictions lie.

4) Unless you are prepared to deny that CCW could have prevented murders at VT or NIU, nothing you can add has relevance to what I said. My claim was simple and straightforward, you either agree with it or you don't. Which is it?
As stated, I disagree, but, again, it is not FACT that they COULD have prevented the murders at either unless you want to admit that Superman COULD have as well. You have speculation and wishing, not fact.

5) If you wish to deny that having a gun increases your chances of killing or disabling someone who is shooting at your classmates, please say 'I deny such and such.

If you want to deny for whatever reason that having one or more guns in the hands of the victims at NIU or VT could have prevented people from being killed, please make that explicit.

Hiding behind "fail" spam doesn't cut it. It doesn't become you.
Let me state this in plain terms since it seems you are not understanding what I am saying, you have claimed that your statements are facts. They are not. They are YOUR OPINION and you have admitted as such in previous posts. Now, you can say I THINK that a CCW could have made a difference, and we could continue to disagree about that. You can say that I THINK the right to bare arms is a fundamental human right, and we can also keep debating; but stating as you did that, "No ammount of tedious, trivial back-and-forth from the K&J spam machine has any bearing on these facts" as if your following statements have been handed down on the stone tablets from Mount Sinai stops the debate because we are reduced to arguing whether or not you indeed have facts.

So, yes, as facts, they fail. As opinions, that has yet to be determined.

Does it matter? They arrive, there's a lot of dead and panicky, crying people running away and in the middle stands the guy with the gun.

Fortunately people who have earned a carry permit know not to do this.

Is this the meat of the argument against CCW on college campuses? That some downright moron might get himself tackled or shot by the police because he waved a gun around after shooting a murderer?

If a person were to make a decision that stupid, having already been told the correct way to behave in the situation, he or she alone is responsible for what happens.

I daresay this is hardly compelling.

In what proportion of school or other massacres do the police arrive in time to exchange fire with the killer?

Would it matter? Let's say there are three CCW holders within shooting range of a gunman. There are 100 people in the area. Let's say an auditorium.

What do you think is going to happen? Obviously there will be a stampede at first. Then one of the CCW's is going to react. Let's say they all have the fight reflex. Obviously they can't all react at the same time, so CCW01 acts first. He draws.

CCW01 shoots, but due to the stampede and general panic, he misses. He may or may not hit a bystander, but the other shot is heard.

CCW02 and CCW03 now have two people shooting, maybe at each other, maybe at the crowd. Mr Gunman realizes someone is shooting at him and shoots back.

Who do you think CCWO2 and 03 are going to shoot?

Even in the best of situations, where CCW01 makes a direct hit and brings down the gunman, he is left standing in a gun, in a panic situation, where shots have been fired. CCW02 and CCW03 have a clear gunman though. CCW01.

And this is of course, assuming that they have unerring accuracy, which given the situation, is wistful at best.

Hooray for mass confusion and clusterfucks!


CCW could have prevented murders at VT or NIU

CCW could. Random mobs of pie flinging clowns could. A team of trained gorillas could. A two year old on a tricycle could.

Just because it may be possible doesn't mean that it will.

If none have, it may well be because knowing that school was a victim disarmament zone, people who might otherwise have bought a pistol and earned a permit to carry it did not.
Please spare me... That is a very weak argument, perhaps you'll next tell me that laws about dog tags have kept people from buying a dog and not a whole host of other issues. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

This problem could be rectified by removing victim disarmament laws and making students more aware of their right to keep and bear arms, their right to defend themselves and others without fear of legal sanctions, and the fact that they are realistically the first and last line of defense both for themselves and for their peers.
You still haven't shown there's a problem in the first place. How many CCW holders have been realistically prevented from acting in a gun free zone? Come on, I'm sure someone has numbers somewhere, gun nuts love to state how if only they had been there with their (Insert gun here) so I have to assume that someone was and has talked about it, so how many?

Because I have this silly idea, it says that this problem ain't actually a problem because right now 48 states have shall issue laws. 48 of them, and yet I don't see a rush of folks going out to get them, I doubt it is due to any gun free zone, but a whole host of other issues, cost, time, disliking guns, and so on. So I'm left to wonder just how many folks do indeed have a CCW that would legitimately be on the campus, maybe... 2? 3? 5 perhaps? Enough to actually outnumber campus police? Doubtful. So why should we remove gun free zones when CCW holders are not going to magically appear any faster than the police.

Like I said, NIU happened in less than 2 minutes.

Then you can agree that it is not a fact. You can state that it is indeed a fact that the second amendment of the US Constitution enshrines the right to bear arms, but saying that it is an fundamental human right is not.


you have claimed that your statements are facts. They are not.

Statements:

1) RKBA is a fundamental human right - disputable
2) RKBA is explicitly stated in the constitution - Fact
3) CCW Could have prevented loss of human life at VT/NIU - Fact
4) A disarmed or unarmed group of victims has no hope of stopping their armed killer - Fact, as far as the evidence of school shootings so far indicated. The killer has never been stopped by his disarmed or unarmed victims.

Instead of entertaining your idle speculation I will stick to the fact that any one of those three CCW holders could fire at the would-be mass murderer and kill or incapacitate him, whereas if there were no CCW holders, the mass murderer would be able to kill as many people as he could at his leisure, as happened at VT and NIU.

Ahh, so you prescribe to the idea that all three CCW holders are linked to a hive mind, have unerring accuracy and perfect judgment.

Or should I say, being a CCW holder will confer you these magical abilities?

Too much action movies for you.


3) CCW Could have prevented loss of human life at VT/NIU - Fact


Liar. Maybe is not a fact. That is opinion.

Would it matter? Let's say there are three CCW holders within shooting range of a gunman. There are 100 people in the area. Let's say an auditorium...

Instead of entertaining your idle speculation I will stick to the fact that any one of those three CCW holders could fire at the would-be mass murderer and kill or incapacitate him, whereas if there were no CCW holders, the mass murderer would be able to kill as many people as he could at his leisure, as happened at VT and NIU.

Please spare me... That is a very weak argument, perhaps you'll next tell me that laws about dog tags have kept people from buying a dog and not a whole host of other issues. Sorry, it doesn't wash.


You still haven't shown there's a problem in the first place. How many CCW holders have been realistically prevented from acting in a gun free zone? Come on, I'm sure someone has numbers somewhere, gun nuts love to state how if only they had been there with their (Insert gun here) so I have to assume that someone was and has talked about it, so how many?

Because I have this silly idea, it says that this problem ain't actually a problem because right now 48 states have shall issue laws. 48 of them, and yet I don't see a rush of folks going out to get them, I doubt it is due to any gun free zone, but a whole host of other issues, cost, time, disliking guns, and so on. So I'm left to wonder just how many folks do indeed have a CCW that would legitimately be on the campus, maybe... 2? 3? 5 perhaps? Enough to actually outnumber campus police? Doubtful. So why should we remove gun free zones when CCW holders are not going to magically appear any faster than the police.

Like I said, NIU happened in less than 2 minutes.

I'm arguing that CCW on campus should be decriminalized because it makes it possible for people who want and are qualified to carry a gun for self defense and the defense of others to carry one.

One person with a CCW on campus is better than none.

I'm not interested in what you tell me gun nuts love to say, or in how long the NIU massacre took. I'm interested in changing the law so that people who want and are qualified to carry a gun for self defense and the defense of others are not prevented from carrying one.

Ahh, so you prescribe to the idea that all three CCW holders are linked to a hive mind, have unerring accuracy and perfect judgment.

Or should I say, being a CCW holder will confer you these magical abilities?

Too much action movies for you.



Liar. Maybe is not a fact. That is opinion.

1) I'd like you to point out anything which would indicate I "prescribe" to that idea you've concocted and are arguing against.

2) You may wish to learn what "could" means before you accuse people of lyingon account of misapprehending what they write.

"prescribe" too, you seem to have invented a novel use for it.

1) I'd like you to point out anything which would indicate I "prescribe" to that idea you've concocted and are arguing against.


I will stick to the fact that any one of those three CCW holders could fire at the would-be mass murderer and kill or incapacitate him

Oh my. They shan't mistake one another for being the gunman? They shan't miss and say, put an extra hole in someone not holding a gun?

Your dismissal of these variables clearly point out what idea you adhere to.


2) You may wish to learn what "could" means before you accuse people of lyingon account of misapprehending what they write.

Fact: A real occurrence; an event. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.

I would say you have a failure to understand what the word fact means. If I were to use your definition of the word fact, then clearly, you are a carrot, and that is a fact.

3) CCW Could have prevented loss of human life at VT/NIU - Fact
So could Superman. Your fact is pointless speculation and therefore not really a fact.

4) A disarmed or unarmed group of victims has no hope of stopping their armed killer - Fact, as far as the evidence of school shootings so far indicated. The killer has never been stopped by his disarmed or unarmed victims.
No, not a fact. Just because it hasn't happened does not follow that it might not in the future. Furthermore, hope is a very tricky word to use, if by hope you mean chance, there is always a chance that something could happen. So the only fact that you actually had was that the right to bare arms is in the second amendment, but you attempted to make a sweeping statement about all of the above.

Instead of entertaining your idle speculation I will stick to the fact that any one of those three CCW holders could fire at the would-be mass murderer and kill or incapacitate him, whereas if there were no CCW holders, the mass murderer would be able to kill as many people as he could at his leisure, as happened at VT and NIU.
And the 1st Marine Division COULD have marched in and taken him out right then too. The starship Heart of Gold COULD have activated its infinite improbability drive and turned him into a bowl of petunias as well.

Speculation does not a fact make.

I'm arguing that CCW on campus should be decriminalized because it makes it possible for people who want and are qualified to carry a gun for self defense and the defense of others to carry one.
Why? You have yet to show me a reason for doing so beyond you want to. Well, I want an aircraft carrier (The USS Enterprise would be nice), doesn't mean I should have one either.

One person with a CCW on campus is better than none.
Oh? Why? If that person is on the other end of campus, they aren't going to magically appear any faster than the police and I'd MUCH rather see a uniform in that situation than someone I don't know from Adam waving another gun around. But, hell, if it's protecting people, it would be MUCH better to have a uniformed police officer in every classroom, why aren't you arguing that?

I'm not interested in what you tell me gun nuts love to say, or in how long the NIU massacre took. I'm interested in changing the law so that people who want and are qualified to carry a gun for self defense and the defense of others are not prevented from carrying one.
You still have not shown there is a need for such a change in laws, a change which would in effect promote the right of CCW owners over the property rights of the university to say just what is allowed on its campus.

Oh my. They shan't mistake one another for being the gunman? They shan't miss and say, put an extra hole in someone not holding a gun?

Your dismissal of these variables clearly point out what idea you adhere to.



Fact: A real occurrence; an event. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.

I would say you have a failure to understand what the word fact means. If I were to use your definition of the word fact, then clearly, you are a carrot, and that is a fact.

The condition where ccw could have prevented loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed, to wit, a person with a concealed handgun could have shot Cho and killed him, ending his massacre prematurely. Because this is not outside the realm of the possible, it is known to have been probable, and hence liable to be described with the word "could" instead of it's opposite, "could not."

A statement that something "could" be possible is factual unless the statement that it "could not" be possible is true.

You made something up about "hive mind" or some kind of nonsense and then claimed I believed in it. Where is the defense of your claim that I "prescribe (sic)" to the idea you made up?

Whether or not they might, in your speculation, mistake one another for being "the gunman" has nothing to do with the fact that one or more of them might fire at and kill the would-be mass murderer.

This does not involve any leaps of your creative imagination, being what it is, rambling about "hive minds."

Why? You have yet to show me a reason for doing so beyond you want to.

1) The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

2) Self defense is a fundamental human right

3) Self defense is immaterial without the means to defend yourself

4) It is possible that an armed citizen could prevent loss of life in the next college massacre


My top 4 reasons, in no significant order, none of which are being posted for the first time.

ETA: Concerning property rights, I see no reason why this law or any other should affect the decisions of private institutions to regulate carry of guns on their property, only public ones.

The condition where ccw could have prevented loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed, to wit, a person with a concealed handgun could have shot Cho and killed him, ending his massacre prematurely. Because this is not outside the realm of the possible, it is known to have been probable, and hence liable to be described with the word "could" instead of it's opposite, "could not."

A statement that something "could" be possible is factual unless the statement that it "could not" be possible is true.

You "could" be a thousand monkeys, randomly banging away at a keyboard. Or perhaps you "could" be actually an escaped lunatic from an asylum, masquerading as a sane person while you hid a pile of corpses in your basement.

Could, is not fact. It is speculation. No more, no less. A what if.

One might as well turn its argument on its head and state "A police officer could have shot Cho, preventing unneeded loss of life", thus necessitating an increased number of police presence in all public spaces.

This puts paid to your argument of "a CCW could", by replacing it with authority figures, and negating any need for CCW on the basis of that reasoning.


You made something up about "hive mind" or some kind of nonsense and then claimed I believed in it.

Only because you made similar nonsense by applying only one ideal scenario, in which all CCWs must be somehow able to recognize one another as not the threat in panic situations and be able to react accordingly while ignoring all other possible scenarios which are far more likely.


Whether or not they might, in your speculation, mistake one another for being "the gunman" has nothing to do with the fact that one or more of them might fire at and kill the would-be mass murderer.


And you might be able to walk away unharmed from being hit by a bus too. One too, might leap from a plane at high altitude without a working parachute, and survive. And of course there are stories of those not dying despite being shot in normally fatal regions. Will you be volunteering?

If you do not, then obviously you do not believe in the ideal outcome to the scenarios outlined above.

Why then, should we believe in your ideal outcome?


3) Self defense is immaterial without the means to defend yourself


There may be a situation where I may need to defend myself with something of greater destructive potential then any mere firearm. Obviously self defense is immaterial without the means to do so, and firearms in those cases may not be the means. Why then, have you argued against my arming myself with artificial plagues and atomic weapons?

The condition where ccw could have prevented loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed, to wit, a person with a concealed handgun could have shot Cho and killed him, ending his massacre prematurely. Because this is not outside the realm of the possible, it is known to have been probable, and hence liable to be described with the word "could" instead of it's opposite, "could not."
So you admit that the 1st Marine Div COULD have also stopped the massacres then? That a 3-year-old on a trike COULD have also ended them as well? These too are facts under your logic. LG COULD have stooped them by throwing pies. I COULD have stopped them by an epic reading of Shakespeare. Your phase space is so large its meaninglessly full of facts.

And I did not know that Cho returned from the dead to kill again at NIU.

A statement that something "could" be possible is factual unless the statement that it "could not" be possible is true.
Ah, English language trickery. In any case, a CCW could not have stopped either of them, because they did not. THAT is factual.

1) The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
The right to swing your fist stops at my nose, you fail to show why your Constitutional right superseeds the right of a university to declare its campus gun free.

2) Self defense is a fundamental human right
The right to self defense does not equate to a right to bear arms, nor have you ever shown it has.

3) Self defense is immaterial without the means to defend yourself
Again, does not mean you need a gun.

4) It is possible that an armed citizen could prevent loss of life in the next college massacre
It's also possible that having loaded cream pie launchers could prevent the loss of life in the next one, but you aren't arguing that.

You still have not shown that gun free zones are a problem.

So you admit that the 1st Marine Div COULD have also stopped the massacres then? That a 3-year-old on a trike COULD have also ended them as well? These too are facts under your logic. LG COULD have stooped them by throwing pies. I COULD have stopped them by an epic reading of Shakespeare. Your phase space is so large its meaninglessly full of facts.

And I did not know that Cho returned from the dead to kill again at NIU.


Ah, English language trickery. In any case, a CCW could not have stopped either of them, because they did not. THAT is factual.

1) Certainly, all those those are factual statements.

2) Nor did I, nor even why you'd post such a thing. Why can't people on this forum keep their typing within some reasonable relationship to the topic at hand? I understand that not everyone is a good critical reader, but it is a waste of time to seize on some idiotic speculative tangent and then post about it.

3) "Could" refers to possibility and potential. You have your notion of what is factual backwards.

CCW could have but did not < a statement of fact.

To claim 'could not' you have to prove impossibility. Not an easy assignment.

1) The constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

An arm is a weapon yes? Then why isn't anybody complaining that your not allowed to have tanks, flying aircraft carriers and nuclear ICBMs?

The right to swing your fist stops at my nose, you fail to show why your Constitutional right superseeds the right of a university to declare its campus gun free.

The right to self defense does not equate to a right to bear arms, nor have you ever shown it has.

Again, does not mean you need a gun.

It's also possible that having loaded cream pie launchers could prevent the loss of life in the next one, but you aren't arguing that.

You still have not shown that gun free zones are a problem.


You asked for my reasons and you disagree with them.

I can, and do at any rate, agree to disagree with you and most other people.

I've pointed out before that our convictions are clearly incompatible. This is not an uncommon occurrence in the world.

I would of course maintain that it is not I, but Cho Sung Hui and whatever other scumbag was responsible for NIU who have shown the problem inherent in gun-free zones.

Obviously, you disagree and are of the opinion that things are fine the way they are.

Which takes us back to point #2 above.

An arm is a weapon yes?

You'll take my arms when you pry them from my cold, dead shoulders! :p

An arm is a weapon yes? Then why isn't anybody complaining that your not allowed to have tanks, flying aircraft carriers and nuclear ICBMs?

Some people do.

An arm is a weapon yes? Then why isn't anybody complaining that your not allowed to have tanks, flying aircraft carriers and nuclear ICBMs?

Somewhere between pages 9-15 is the answer to this question, at length.

Or, you can research the weapons laws and court decisions concerning the 2nd amendment.

Somewhere between pages 9-15 is the answer to this question, at length.

It was on 11/12, and was an interesting read. I usually read through this stuff and come away with a feeling off that you're just the tiniest bit screwed.

If you could start and grow your country over again there's a few things I would have recommended you do differently. Making your important documents less vague would be one of them, I'd offer the same advice to the guys that wrote the Bible too.

Some people do.

You should let them, I wouldn't start shooting if I knew that everybody in a place had a tank.

3) CCW Could have prevented loss of human life at VT/NIU - Fact



3) "Could" refers to possibility and potential. You have your notion of what is factual backwards.

CCW could have but did not < a statement of fact.

To claim 'could not' you have to prove impossibility. Not an easy assignment.

*blows whistle*

Red card! Into the box for moving goal posts away!

4) A disarmed or unarmed group of victims has no hope of stopping their armed killer - Fact, as far as the evidence of school shootings so far indicated. The killer has never been stopped by his disarmed or unarmed victims.

Killers need to stop leaving people alive, if death was a certainty a few more people might be up for it. Although I guess most people would rather die cowering and hoping for a miracle than volunteering for cannon fodder duty.

*blows whistle*

Red card! Into the box for moving goal posts away!


More nonsense I see.

Fascinating, I'm sure!

Free education is guaranteed absolutely up until the university level, and extremely cheap education (free for people who cannot afford it) is guaranteed through the second year of university, through the community/jr college system, with a huge number of organizations both public and private offering assistance in paying for the final two years.

Additionally, state universities are extremely affordable, often costing less than 5,000 dollars per year to attend, with options for paying over an extended period of time or receiving grants and scholarships based both on merit and especially on financial need.

How many of those countries charge a tax later in life to defray the cost of paying for university? That would be equivalent to the US system of government subsidized student loans. Those countries are willing to pay for two more years of education than the US- hardly a "right" that one has and the other doesn't.

So, students have to pay for university and college education. Not exactly free, is it?
And not exactly a right either, more of a "if you can pay for it, you can have it"-privilege.

And what does tax have to do with anything in this case?


Germans it may be pointed out are denied freedom of speech and expression vis a vis nazis, and several other countries have laws against blasphemy or 'hate speech' which abridge the freedom of speech which Americans enjoy.


Germans have full rights of freedom of speech vis a vis Nazis. The only infringement on that is the law against denying the holocaust happened.
Compared to a country that might try and take you to court for burning a flag, I take the more liberal German approach, thanks.


The right to take drugs or engage in prostitution are quite compelling, i'm sure, when weighed against free speech and the right to self defense, which is to say, the right to keep and bear arms.


Gay marriage is permitted in the United States, so this is a moot point of comparison.

Is it? All over the US? Really? So gay couples can get a legal marriage contract in Utah and Kansas?
That's rather big news, care to back it up somehow?


Which leaves us with what?

Drugs and prostitution vs free speech and the right to bear arms.

So much freer, indeed :rolleyes:

Try again.

Yep, try again indeed.

Btw, you might want to read into European legislations where gun ownership is concerned. It might astonish you that guns are treated for the most part much like cars and drivers licencses : Not a right, but a privilege, yet easy enough to legally obtain by the largest part of the population if they so wish.

Free education, free health care (UK), freedom of using personal assets for enterprise, freedom to use not-too-harmful drugs, and the privilege to own guns if qualified against slighltly more freedom of speech (one very specific and limited topic, all in all) and the "right" to own guns.

I know what I'd take, given the choice.

1) Certainly, all those those are factual statements.
No, those are speculative statements, there's a difference.

2) Nor did I, nor even why you'd post such a thing.
Posted by you: The condition where ccw could have prevented loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed, to wit, a person with a concealed handgun could have shot Cho and killed him, ending his massacre prematurely.

Cho was at VT, you placed him at NIU as well. What was that about critical reading skills?

3) "Could" refers to possibility and potential. You have your notion of what is factual backwards.

CCW could have but did not < a statement of fact.

To claim 'could not' you have to prove impossibility. Not an easy assignment.
Fact, noun: A thing that is known or proved to be true. -OED

A CCW holder could have stopped that happened = speculation on your part, it is neither known or proved.

No CCW holder stopped what happened = fact. You are engaging in speculation only, you do not KNOW what a CCW could or could not have done given that you were not there at the time to observe the situation and conditions.

I would of course maintain that it is not I, but Cho Sung Hui and whatever other scumbag was responsible for NIU who have shown the problem inherent in gun-free zones.
So then if there were shootings in an area where CCW are allowed then... what's the problem there?

No, you have not shown the problem inherent in gun-free zones except that there are shootings in them, but there are shootings in areas that are not gun-free zones and so far we only have 8 stories about how a CCW did anything .

See this is why people call you gun nuts, gun nuts. You could very easily attempt a reasonable argument, but instead you work around it rather than face up to it. When hunting and target shooting becomes the most come reason an individual decides they want a handgun, then you'll have a point. Currently, primarily, people purchase handguns for self-defense, and target shooting is an aside. That some people try to make a point by using pistols for hunting really is of a little value to the debate.

Unless I read it wrong, your post that I responded to made the inference that the ONLY use for handguns was self defense. I realize that self defense is the primary reason that most people own handguns, but I was pointing out that there ARE other uses.

And? It's not uncommon for a right to have some limitations in the interest of public safety. You don't get to yell fire in a theater, for example. However, again, the argument here isn't really about historical rifles, so let's not pretend it is. It's about guns, all guns, not those rare exceptions. Unlesss you can make an argument for owning guns designed around the purpose of being optimal for combat and killing, then you've lost. It's really that simple. Arguing from the fringes just makes it look like you don't have faith in your argument.

Fine, let's talk about this rifle: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

This is my rifle. I own it and use it for the purpose of target shooting. I don't ever intend to use it against another person, and if I get good enough, I'd like to participate in competition. Of course, I'd like to own an M1 Garand for the same purpose.

Target shooting is indeed an Olympic sport, which, if memory serves, requires some very specialized rifles for. That being said, if all you want to do is threaten some paper targets, why do you need a working gun? Paint guns have a nice splatter effect, BB guns work wonders, I personally enjoy rubber band guns just because they are much more difficult to aim and hit a target with over any appreciable distance. Heck, air rifles do much of the same as a real rife in terms of just making paper scared of ya.

Just pointing out that target practice can be done using methods other than pistols, making it a semi-weak argument to lean on.


In this case, I am working on the premise of a gun utilizing a rifled barrel, NORMALLY designed to be fired from the shoulder (With some exceptions), capable of holding a hunting scope, midrange caliber cartages (Mostly), and a magazine of no more than 3 to 5 rounds. The gun was designed by its manufacturer for hunters and hunting proposes as its mainstay. There's a lot of guns included in that, yes, and some left out (Like muskets or shotguns) that should be included, but I was working towards a nice concept to talk about rather than throw it open to any firearm.

Pretty much a hunting rifle was designed to hunt game animals in mind first and foremost, not for war or self-defense. One CAN go hunting with a Desert Eagle, but I would assume that you would agree that is NOT a hunting rifle.

Paintball guns and rubber band guns don't have the same ballistics that real guns have (they don't even have the same level of repeatable accuracy that a real gun has). Air guns, paint guns, and rubber band guns also don't have the range of a real gun. Therefore, IMO they wouldn't be a replacement for real firearms for target shooting.


Oh, and a Desert Eagle isn't a rifle at all. It's a semi-auto pistol. :D

No, those are speculative statements, there's a difference.

He used "could have", basically it's a fact if there's a chance of it occurring, it doesn't necessarily have to be a reasonable one.

Paintball guns and rubber band guns don't have the same ballistics that real guns have (they don't even have the same level of repeatable accuracy that a real gun has). Air guns, paint guns, and rubber band guns also don't have the range of a real gun. Therefore, IMO they wouldn't be a replacement for real firearms for target shooting.
If you're looking for that, get an Olympic model then. Like I said, target practice is a weak-argument to lean on.

Oh, and a Desert Eagle isn't a rifle at all. It's a semi-auto pistol. :D
Where's that damn fish? :p

Yes, I KNOW it's a pistol, a rather large one at that. That's the point, the Desert Eagle was designed with one thing in mind, killing someone else. A Winchester .30-30 however is aimed (if you'll pardon the pun) at deer hunting. Now one CAN attempt to kill a man with a .30-30, and you COULD go after deer with a Desert Eagle, but that's not what they were meant for, which is what I was after in my def of hunting rifle.

Air guns, paint guns, and rubber band guns also don't have the range of a real gun. Therefore, IMO they wouldn't be a replacement for real firearms for target shooting.


Ohhh I don't know I have my Dad's old Webley air pistol, from wen he was a kid, it's been umm supped up, and shoots right good. Now thats something that has got to be 45 years old by now too.

He used "could have", basically it's a fact if there's a chance of it occurring, it doesn't necessarily have to be a reasonable one.
Here's the problem though:

1. His could have makes a rather large phase space to play in. A clown COULD have thrown a pie which blinded a taxi cab driver, sending his cap out of control, startling a passing heard of cows which stampeded through the campus, causing a massive amount of cow shite to be deposited, which someone carrying a 6 ft sub sandwich slipped on, causing said sandwich to fly through the window, beaning the shooter and knocking him out before he starting shooting. It COULD have happened that way. It could also have happened that the shooter was suddenly challenged to a game of tag by space going oni that ended up with him becoming married to one, or he could have fallen prey to a weird quantum effect known as tunneling whereby he would suddenly appear outside of the building before he started shooting.

In such speculation, anything is fair game. But, we must ask ourselves, does this mean we should station a clown with a pie to throw in case of future shootings because it could have happened that way?

No.

The second part though, which really nails the not fact is that the event already happened! The probable 1 already occurred, we KNOW what happened, we know that any CCW there did not stop the shootings from happening because they have already happened. Unless someone's developed time travel, you cannot make what ifs suddenly take on factual status because the event has happened and we cannot change it for all the tea in China.

In such speculation, anything is fair game. But, we must ask ourselves, does this mean we should station a clown with a pie to throw in case of future shootings because it could have happened that way?


That sounds like a much more interesting debate, lets talk about that instead.

A licensed citizen carrying a concealed handgun could have stopped both the VT and NIU massacres by shooting the respective murderers before they could kill as many people as they did.

A disarmed group of victims has no hope of stopping their killer.

I don't know why gun nuts are so dead set on arguing on grounds that can't win.

Assuming laws were more lax -

Fact: A licensed citizen COULD HAVE stopped the killing spree IF they were, A, carrying a weapon, B, able to draw that weapon quickly enough, C, close enough to know who the shooter was, D, in a position to shoot the shooter without getting shot first, E, had good enough aim to hit the shooter, F, did not fire any extraneous shots that hit other people or travelled through the shooter.

That's six IF's.

Assuming laws were more strict -

Fact: These individuals could not have legally obtained firearms.

No IF's.

You really want to tread on ground where your argument fails keep standing on the backs of these victims. It's a fact that the guns used at NIU were obtained perfectly legally. There is only one thing that is guaranteed and that is that tighter laws would ABSOLUTELY have prevented the shooter from acquiring weapons in the way he did. EVERYTHING else is speculative. And when one thing is speculative and one thing is a given, speculative loses.

Fine, let's talk about this rifle: http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

This is my rifle. I own it and use it for the purpose of target shooting. I don't ever intend to use it against another person, and if I get good enough, I'd like to participate in competition. Of course, I'd like to own an M1 Garand for the same purpose.

You don't seem to really get it. It doesn't matter. The argument exists in one place and one place only. If there is a compelling public interest for the removal of firearms, your desire to shoot targets takes a back seat.

The second amendment was never intended to protect your "right" to shoot targets. It was very clearly created for self-defense against enemies both foreign and domestic. The argument is going to be won or lost on whether or not that right outweighs public interest. So far, I've not seen it demonstrated that there is a public interest in denying people pistols. However, talking about how you wish to collect guns or use them for recreation has naught to do with the second amendment.

The condition where ccw could have prevented loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed

A condition where more strict gun laws WOULD have prevented the loss of life at vt/niu is known to have existed. You keep the argument on these grounds and you lose.

That sounds like a much more interesting debate, lets talk about that instead.
Heh... works for me, this argument, like all gun control threads, is going around in circles again.

Heh... works for me, this argument, like all gun control threads, is going around in circles again.

Here's the argument people who advocate the second amendment should make. Honestly, the data does not support an argument against it.

Gun advocate: It is you who wishes to deny me my rights. To do so you demonstrate conclusively that a compelling public interest outweighs my rights. That means that not only do you have to demonstrate that removing or restricting my right to keep and bear arms will provide for that interest but ALSO that it's the best and most reasonable method for doing so.

There you go. No circles. If you advocate gun control AND a respect for rights, this is the only way you win the argument. Right now gun advocates are winning and gun control advocates are simply proving they don't actually respect rights.

He used "could have", basically it's a fact if there's a chance of it occurring, it doesn't necessarily have to be a reasonable one.

So New Granada could be a carrot -> fact?

More nonsense I see.

Fascinating, I'm sure!

Yes, because saying one thing, and then tacking on something else that changes the meaning utterly, but claiming that they are one and the same, is nonsense. So black is white, up is down, and CCW is actually gun restriction.

You do seem to like it though. Sadly for you, it is not LG brand nonsense, and so, fails to amuse.

Heh... works for me, this argument, like all gun control threads, is going around in circles again.

I think that a clown would not only be able to stop deaths through the method you described, but that enough people are cheered up by or afraid of clowns that they will act as a deterrent as well.

I think that a clown would not only be able to stop deaths through the method you described, but that enough people are cheered up by or afraid of clowns that they will act as a deterrent as well.
That may be, but on the other hand, have we really considered the cost in terms of pies, tacos to feed the clowns, and the dry cleaning bills from false pieing?

So New Granada could be a carrot -> fact?

No, but it is a fact that NG could be a homicidal maniac. Since speculation is argument, I say why would anyone consider the arguments of a homicidal maniac.

That may be, but on the other hand, have we really considered the cost in terms of pies, tacos to feed the clowns, and the dry cleaning bills from false pieing?

We could give them a violin case and they could collect money while waiting for the murderers to show up.

We could give them a violin case and they could collect money while waiting for the murderers to show up.

Musical clowns armed with pies? Will they be small violins?

Musical clowns armed with pies? Will they be small violins?

Yes, but they'll be kept in really big cases, so people don't have to expend as much effort to put the coins in them.

Yes, but they'll be kept in really big cases, so people don't have to expend as much effort to put the coins in them.

I say put a fountain in the middle of the case. I hear people in the US like to whip (that's right I said whip. I also saying "I was booking" to refer to running fast) coins at water provided that water is being hurled in the air artificially.

I say put a fountain in the middle of the case. I hear people in the US like to whip (that's right I said whip. I also saying "I was booking" to refer to running fast) coins at water provided that water is being hurled in the air artificially.

Would the water affect the consistency of the pie then?

I can understand that but it doesn't change the reality of what modern firearms are used for. Which is ending the life of others. I can't understand why anyone would want those floating around outside the military and police.I can see why someone would want the primary arms-bearers to be the military and police, but I can't see why someone would want them to be the only arms-bearers.

I'm interested in changing the law so that people who want and are qualified to carry a gun for self defense and the defense of others are not prevented from carrying one.I'm inclined to agree with you. Go with this argument.

In recent years?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078861416

"The students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, had worked as police officers in North Carolina before moving to Grundy. Both said they ran to their cars and grabbed weapons when the shooting started on the second floor of the law school.

They, along with two other students, approached Odighizuwa in front of the law school. Bridges and Gross both told reporters that they raised their guns at Odighizuwa and he dropped his weapon, after which the group tackled and handcuffed him. "

Don't you think it's pretty obvious why these stories are hard to find? It doesn't exactly enforce the viewpoint the media wants. It's incredible that this didn't get more coverage.

Has there ever been a documented case in recent history where an armed member of the public has stopped a potential massacre?

Could anyone provide a link to a reliable source (not wikipedia) that confirms it?

In recent years?

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1024078861416

"The students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, had worked as police officers in North Carolina before moving to Grundy. Both said they ran to their cars and grabbed weapons when the shooting started on the second floor of the law school.

They, along with two other students, approached Odighizuwa in front of the law school. Bridges and Gross both told reporters that they raised their guns at Odighizuwa and he dropped his weapon, after which the group tackled and handcuffed him. "

Don't you think it's pretty obvious why these stories are hard to find? It doesn't exactly enforce the viewpoint the media wants. It's incredible that this didn't get more coverage.

But Odighizuwa's gun, authorities say, was already empty, and other witnesses have said the alleged shooter never even saw the other students' guns before surrendering

so that's a "no" then :rolleyes:

Which is speculation that he knew either and just one example. Unidentified witnesses saying something means nothing and sounds like an outright lie or manipulation. He surrendered to armed men without seeing the guns? Just search for armed citizens and you'll get the information you want. Unless you want to be willfully ignorant, which I suspect might be the case.

You might not find too many "reputable" sources, but that's not because the incidents don't happen, it's because they don't make the national press.

And for the record, I carry a concealed weapon and I would absolutely go after a gunman in that situation. However, sadly, not too many people carry overall.

Which is speculation that he knew either and just one example. Unidentified witnesses saying something means nothing and sounds like an outright lie or manipulation. He surrendered to armed men without seeing the guns? Just search for armed citizens and you'll get the information you want. Unless you want to be willfully ignorant, which I suspect might be the case.

You might not find too many "reputable" sources, but that's not because the incidents don't happen, it's because they don't make the national press.

And for the record, I carry a concealed weapon and I would absolutely go after a gunman in that situation. However, sadly, not too many people carry overall.

So in other words, the information we have is that the gun is empty, but you want us to assume it wasn't?

Furthermore, you want us to accept there's a national conspiracy to hide the fact that citizens are stopping massacres?

Do you want to know that I'm laughing or would you prefer I pretend I can actually take that seriously?

I'm saying that there was time between the periods where he fired the gun and then again before he surrendered while still moving in the complex, he didn't just empty his gun and run away, he might not have known it was empty. Even if he did, it doesn't change the fact that they would have simply killed him if hadn't surrendered and the gun was still loaded.

And the whole thing about not knowing the people he surrendered to were armed is just ridiculous. Unidentified witnesses indeed.

And you tell me why this school shooting, unlike the others was not all over the national press and it's hard to even find a source that reported on it? You tell me why?

Er, no. The right to bear arms is NOT a fundamental right. Sorry, you have never shown it as such.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To Americans it is, whether you think it should be or not is another matter entirely