mass shooting in PA while... NRA is calling for more guns

[dirrty]

And he seems to have the view that "if a criminal wants to get a gun, then they will get one whether they are legal or not" which completely ignores opportunists who wouldn't go on school shooting sprees if their dad didn't have a gun in his office cabinet. Not to mention the fact that (admittedly this isn't the case for the us) guns are ridiculously hard to get a hold of (talking about the uk and Dan arguing in another thread that guns should be legalised).

like those who say "guns don't kill people, people do!!" yes, that may be the case, but guns make it HELL OF A LOT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO DO SO WITH SUCH EASY ACCESS. especially ones that are so high-powered, that only law enforcements/military/whatever. should possess them.

someone (not undertaker, as he'll probably say in a free society [even though it is 10000% theoretical], people should be able to possess whatever they desire and the gov't shouldn't regulate what members of society can and should do or something like that) needs to tell me why this:


is deemed as an american right for civilians, and not a privilege (even though it is, and should be the latter). legit can't imagine having one of these in my house, and even using it? there's only one purpose weapons possess - to kill.

[The Don]

like those who say "guns don't kill people, people do!!" yes, that may be the case, but guns make it HELL OF A LOT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO DO SO WITH SUCH EASY ACCESS. especially ones that are so high-powered, that only law enforcements/military/whatever. should possess them.

someone (not undertaker, as he'll probably say in a free society [even though it is 10000% theoretical], people should be able to possess whatever they desire and the gov't shouldn't regulate what members of society can and should do or something like that) needs to tell me why this:


is deemed as an american right for civilians, and not a privilege (even though it is, and should be the latter). legit can't imagine having one of these in my house, and even using it? there's only one purpose weapons possess - to kill.

Everything you've just said sums up my opinion but Dan seems to think that if it doesn't infringe the rights of others then people should automatically be allowed to do whatever they want (except for gays getting married.. hypocrite much?) which is nonsense as there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Contrary to what Dan has previously said, a guns only purpose is to kill. Be it to commit a crime, for self defence, for war. Whatever the purpose, it is used to maim someone/something which is why the public shouldn't be allowed them. People wouldn't need guns for self defence if there weren't criminals armed with them in the first place. And rather than providing guns for self defence, the government should improve the police force if it's resulting in the public having to take matters into their own hands.

[GommeInc]

Surely madmen are more likely to want to own a gun than a sensible, rational individual? Plus who is to say a "good guy with a gun" would want to use it or even know how to? A good guy with a gun simply doesn't exist.

[-:Undertaker:-]

better if a madman isn't armed...

And what magic fairy wand do you have that will suddenly make this possible?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339130

pity all of this would never happen in the US. imagine the uproar...

@-:Undertaker:-; that's the responsibility of law enforcement. teachers are only there to teach and offer educational support. not become gun-wielding 'protectors'. it's not their responsibility to make up for the government's lack of control on gun crime, what weapons are allowed and who gets hold of them.

Then you are just sticking your head in the sand. The fact of the matter is that guns exist and we can't uninvent them, and that the US has a gun culture which is there and it exists. So what is up for debate is; how can people best be defended, with or without guns? with guns obviously.

I saw one idea proposed that makes sense - hire an ex-military man in every school as security. It'd not only mean every school has an armed guard who has professional skills, but also that the unemployment problems amongst ex-servicemen disappears.

I think you keep missing the point when it comes to arming people. You assume that everyone has a fair proficiency with guns and reject the idea that some people do not have the ability to kill another, even if in defence.

Where have I suggested that guns don't kill people? the debate is really really really simple. Guns exist, and gun culture exists - what do we do? are we to arm law abiding people against madmen and criminals, or are we only to arm the Police who turn up ten minutes after he's starting shooting off? the choice to be is so blindingly simple it doesn't even warrant a debate.

And he seems to have the view that "if a criminal wants to get a gun, then they will get one whether they are legal or not" which completely ignores opportunists who wouldn't go on school shooting sprees if their dad didn't have a gun in his office cabinet. Not to mention the fact that (admittedly this isn't the case for the us) guns are ridiculously hard to get a hold of (talking about the uk and Dan arguing in another thread that guns should be legalised).

Who says they couldn't just buy one from the black market like you can here?

like those who say "guns don't kill people, people do!!" yes, that may be the case, but guns make it HELL OF A LOT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO DO SO WITH SUCH EASY ACCESS. especially ones that are so high-powered, that only law enforcements/military/whatever. should possess them.

someone (not undertaker, as he'll probably say in a free society [even though it is 10000% theoretical], people should be able to possess whatever they desire and the gov't shouldn't regulate what members of society can and should do or something like that) needs to tell me why this:


is deemed as an american right for civilians, and not a privilege (even though it is, and should be the latter). legit can't imagine having one of these in my house, and even using it? there's only one purpose weapons possess - to kill.

Disarm the state of these types of weapons then (especially Obama, who walks around with ten armed guards carrying these things) and then maybe we'll talk as the whole point in gun rights is actually so that the people can resist the state - like Switzerland. Oh, and along with criminals - because if you ban high power weapons for civilians, then when a criminal is to carry out a crime what weapons to you think he'll pick?

The Swiss have high powered weapons legalised from what I know, and don't have this trouble. It's culture, not the guns themselves.

Everything you've just said sums up my opinion but Dan seems to think that if it doesn't infringe the rights of others then people should automatically be allowed to do whatever they want (except for gays getting married.. hypocrite much?) which is nonsense as there has to be a line drawn somewhere.

I have stated I would take the state out of marriage altogether meaning anybody can get married (to anything).

Contrary to what Dan has previously said, a guns only purpose is to kill. Be it to commit a crime, for self defence, for war. Whatever the purpose, it is used to maim someone/something which is why the public shouldn't be allowed them. People wouldn't need guns for self defence if there weren't criminals armed with them in the first place. And rather than providing guns for self defence, the government should improve the police force if it's resulting in the public having to take matters into their own hands.

Then tell me the answers to these two questions;

a) how to you invent a Police force which can respond the moment the first shot is fired? time travel?
b) how do you stop criminals from being able to acquire guns in the first place?

The fact is, you can't. Guns are to kill you are right, and kill in self defence the American people should.

Surely madmen are more likely to want to own a gun than a sensible, rational individual? Plus who is to say a "good guy with a gun" would want to use it or even know how to? A good guy with a gun simply doesn't exist.

Tell that to the millions of Americans who stay safe, especially in crime ridden areas, with a gun under the bed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

@dirrty;

This video addresses your 'point' on the automatic gun you posted.



As Nugent (somebody who knows about guns, as opposed to mollycoddled British youngsters like us lot) says, there already exists a hard process to acquire automatic weapons like machine guns as well as the fact that many weapons which do not look like that are actually just as dangerous (see part on the Congresswoman) - as well as the weapon used at Sandybrooks (a AR-15) being a standard hunting weapon, not a machine gun. So point moot. Just because it looks scary doesn't make it any more worse than a old style wooden rifle or shotgun.

The misinformation thats being spread about guns in this debate is ridiculous; logic ought to be used over emotion.

[dbgtz]

Where have I suggested that guns don't kill people? the debate is really really really simple. Guns exist, and gun culture exists - what do we do? are we to arm law abiding people against madmen and criminals, or are we only to arm the Police who turn up ten minutes after he's starting shooting off? the choice to be is so blindingly simple it doesn't even warrant a debate.

Again, you've missed my point completely.

[The Don]

Your entire argument is built around the false assumption that every criminal would be able to gain access to a gun if they were banned which simply isn’t true. Since you haven’t bothered to solidify your points with any evidence I’ll bring in statistics.

There were 6,285 firearm offences recorded by police in England and Wales from September 2010 to September 2011 which accounted for 0.2% of all recorded crime. Here’s the interesting part, 9.3% of all homicides in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm (meaning over 90% of all homicides did not involve a gun) this is polarised by California’s statistics where over 2/3rd’s of all murders during 2011 (68%) were committed using a gun. If your argument was valid (which it isn’t) then the percentage of murders committed using a firearm would be far higher than it actually is. Since a gun is superior to any other weapon such as knives etc. then by your logic all murders committed would include a firearm of some sort since every criminal, according to you, can easily obtain a firearm. In the real world, it is much harder to obtain a gun if they are banned (using the UK as an example) than you actually think it is. Legalising them would certainly have a negative effect and would be senseless to do so.

Rather than fighting fire with fire by placing armed guards in schools, which is preposterous might I add, the US should focus more on mental health care and preventing things such as columbine (where there actually was an armed guard on duty there at the time who was unable to keep the 13 students murdered safe) before they actually happen.

logic ought to be used over emotion.

And fact ought to be used over baseless opinions which aren't backed up whatsoever.

Sources:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

[-:Undertaker:-]

Again, you've missed my point completely.

I haven't missed the point at all, rather i've just responded with something you didn't want to hear.

Your entire argument is built around the false assumption that every criminal would be able to gain access to a gun if they were banned which simply isn’t true. Since you haven’t bothered to solidify your points with any evidence I’ll bring in statistics.

I never said every criminal, I state very clearly that a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get hold of one. This is very much the same as all illegal drugs which even I (not being the most streetwise at all) would be able to get hold of junk.

There were 6,285 firearm offences recorded by police in England and Wales from September 2010 to September 2011 which accounted for 0.2% of all recorded crime. Here’s the interesting part, 9.3% of all homicides in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm (meaning over 90% of all homicides did not involve a gun) this is polarised by California’s statistics where over 2/3rd’s of all murders during 2011 (68%) were committed using a gun.

California and cities such as Detriot have tough gun laws, amongst the toughest in the United States, yet are the worst for gun crimes. So you can quote all the figures you like (many of which are skewed anyway, such as Swiss ones, as they include suicide bids within the figures) but the fact of the matter is that culture is the determining factor - not gun rights.

If your argument was valid (which it isn’t) then the percentage of murders committed using a firearm would be far higher than it actually is. Since a gun is superior to any other weapon such as knives etc. then by your logic all murders committed would include a firearm of some sort since every criminal, according to you, can easily obtain a firearm. In the real world, it is much harder to obtain a gun if they are banned (using the UK as an example) than you actually think it is. Legalising them would certainly have a negative effect and would be senseless to do so.

Actually it is very easy to obtain a gun if you know where to get them, just as it is with drugs, illegal animals and so on. The reason why many criminals have not obtained a gun is because many crimes, especially murders, are robberies gone wrong - couple that with the fact that guns are expensive to obtain in both this realm and the United States.. which is often out of the reach of petty criminals.

Rather than fighting fire with fire by placing armed guards in schools, which is preposterous might I add, the US should focus more on mental health care and preventing things such as columbine (where there actually was an armed guard on duty there at the time who was unable to keep the 13 students murdered safe) before they actually happen.

That is all very all. But tell me this, and I want a direct response to this; when the next massacre happens (which it will), what do you say to those teachers and staff members who were forcibly disarmed thanks to your gun controls? because by then it will be too late to say anything as they will be dead. Easy for you to sit behind a computer and say "we need to learn lessons" and pass silly pieces of paper via parliament, but those kids and those staff members are dead. Gone.

Whilst an armed guard doesn't gurantee safety, it's a far sight better than being a sitting duck in a 'gun free zone'.

And fact ought to be used over baseless opinions which aren't backed up whatsoever.

Sources:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...crime-us-state

I'm afraid they are backed up, it is people like yourself who live in a total dream land and want to disarm law abiding people.

Absolutely bonkers and as Ted Nugent said, who are you to tell me how, when, where or even if I can defend myself?

[FiftyCal]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339130

pity all of this would never happen in the US. imagine the uproar...

@-:Undertaker:-; that's the responsibility of law enforcement. teachers are only there to teach and offer educational support. not become gun-wielding 'protectors'. it's not their responsibility to make up for the government's lack of control on gun crime, what weapons are allowed and who gets hold of them.

Civilians have the same authority as Law Enforcement do. Both can be used as public servants, defend the public, and can perform arrests (Citizens arrest if you are a civilian arresting a civilian). If we want to disarm people, start with the government and law enforcement. WE DON'T NEED GUNS RIGHT?

[The Don]

I never said every criminal, I state very clearly that a criminal who wants a gun will be able to get hold of one.

Which obviously isn't true and is just a thoughtless statement with no real backing. it obviously isn't true otherwise the gun crime rate would be much higher in the uk rather than 0.2%

This is very much the same as all illegal drugs which even I (not being the most streetwise at all) would be able to get hold of junk.

There's a huge difference between drugs which any unskilled junky could make and a firearm which would be impossible for homemad construction and distribution making this point redundant. It's like comparing the circulation of a sportscar to a homemade wagon, any Tom **** and Harry can make a crappy wagon but you won't be finding guns being made this way.

California and cities such as Detriot have tough gun laws, amongst the toughest in the United States, yet are the worst for gun crimes.

Again, irrelevant point because they can simply drive a state over and purchase one then transport it back without having to pass through any borders/customs.

So you can quote all the figures you like (many of which are skewed anyway, such as Swiss ones, as they include suicide bids within the figures)

Shame that I didn't quote any Swiss ones...

but the fact of the matter is that culture is the determining factor - not gun rights.

They both interlink, America wouldn't have a gun culture if guns were banned the same as in the UK.

Actually it is very easy to obtain a gun if you know where to get them, just as it is with drugs, illegal animals and so on.

No, it isn't hence the low statistics in the UK. We don't live in some Hollywood film where on every street corner you can find an arms dealer with a huge arsenal in the boot of his car.

The reason why many criminals have not obtained a gun is because many crimes, especially murders, are robberies gone wrong

Again this isn't fact, just you trying to rationalise your argument with untrue statements.

couple that with the fact that guns are expensive to obtain in both this realm and the United States.. which is often out of the reach of petty criminals.

Using your logic of 'if a madman wants a gun he will get one whether they are banned or not' you're really telling me price is the deterring factor? Try harder dan...

That is all very all. But tell me this, and I want a direct response to this; when the next massacre happens (which it will), what do you say to those teachers and staff members who were forcibly disarmed thanks to your gun controls?

Teacher's shouldn't be forced into wielding guns and its insane to think that increasing the amount of weapons in the US is the most appropriate response. Not only would this be completely ignoring the root of the problem (lack of mental health care) it would have a negative effect to the amount of potential teachers, since they are applying to teach, not be armed vigilantes.

because by then it will be too late to say anything as they will be dead. Easy for you to sit behind a computer and say "we need to learn lessons" and pass silly pieces of paper via parliament, but those kids and those staff members are dead. Gone.

And it's easy for you to dream of a world where everybody can own whatever they want but it's simply just that, a dream. Not everybody is mentally responsible to own a firearm and I'd much rather the idea of an unarmed majority as opposed to everybody walking round with holsters dangling from their waists.

Whilst an armed guard doesn't gurantee safety, it's a far sight better than being a sitting duck in a 'gun free zone'.

A gun free country with decent mental health care is a far better sight than one with the Ted Nugent philosophy of an eye for an eye and shoot to kill.

I'm afraid they are backed up, it is people like yourself who live in a total dream land and want to disarm law abiding people.

They aren't backed up, you haven't provided proof of your main point which is 'its easy to buy guns in the uk' which is complete and utter garbage hence the low gun crime over here.

If you do respond please don't try and pass off your opinions as fact and then use that for the entire basis of your argument.