|
*Updated* Shooting in Virginia school (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| XaNaX |
I knew I could count on the liberals in this forum to break out the 'Ban all Guns' banners and flags as soon as a shooting like this occurs. Let me break it down for you all in simple terms so even liberals can understand:
1. If we ban guns then owning a gun becomes a crime
2. Who commits crimes? - Law abiding citizens or criminals? We all know the answer to this.
3. Since by definition criminals do not follow laws, do you think a criminal gives two squirts of about a law that says they cannot have a gun?
4. Now you have a situation where law abiding citizens have no weapons and criminals who could care less about the law have them. Who thinks that this is good?
Instead of the knee-jerk reaction of "oh lets get rid of all the guns" why not instead use rational thought like "how would things have been different at Virginia Tech if just 2 or 3 students or teachers in each class were carrying guns?" My guess is he may have shot a few people by using the element of surprise but he would have certainly been gunned down by armed law abiding citizens prior to killing 30 people.
Lets face it, even you liberals have to admit that gun control is a miserable failure. Criminals can and will always be able to get guns no matter what country of the world they live in. |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
You guys do realize the overwhelming majority of gun crimes committed in the US are by guns that are acquired illegally, right? In other words, it wouldn't make any difference if you changed the constitution or made them illegal. The only thing that would change is that any semblance of being able to track and register guns and their owners would be completely lost and we would have absolutely no clue as to who had guns. Sorry folks, but the "genie" is out. Blame the ancient Chinese for inventing gunpowder in the first place if you need someone. There are guns now and there always will be, especially in the US which has had a torrid history with them.
I find it ironic that many on these boards will bitch about the downfall of freedoms in the US, but have no problem saying that a part of our constitution should be changed because of the actions of a few. Not to get on a soapbox, but every freedom has a responsibility, and not all people decide to act responsibly. However, that does not mean the irresponsibility of a few should mean the freedom is erased for the many.
Should slander, libel or "hate speech" from a few mean the first amendment should be removed?
Should the acts of a few homicidal maniacs mean the second amendment should be removed?
Should drunk drivers mean alcohol should be prohibited again, or what about cars?
No. In each case you punish those who acted irresponsibly, while preserving the rights of the millions of individuals who choose to act responsibly.
This country, this world, is so fickle. We jump on the latest and greatest news story, totally losing perspective. Who cares that out of a country of 300 million these events are rare? Who cares that we're talking about stripping a part of the Bill of Rights? Who cares that we're again arguing for "safety" over freedom? We only care that right now some crazy person killed 30+ people and we don't care what we do, as long as we do something. |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Instead of the knee-jerk reaction of "oh lets get rid of all the guns" why not instead use rational thought like "how would things have been different at Virginia Tech if just 2 or 3 students or teachers in each class were carrying guns?" My guess is he may have shot a few people by using the element of surprise but he would have certainly been gunned down by armed law abiding citizens prior to killing 30 people.
Lets face it, even you liberals have to admit that gun control is a miserable failure. Criminals can and will always be able to get guns no matter what country of the world they live in. |
i donŽt know if youŽre being sarcastic or serious, very funny :D
IŽll tell my boss that me and a few of my fellow teachers and students should be armed with guns at my university to prevent a situation like this from ever happening there. I will pick which teachers and students will be bestowed this honour by gauging their knowledge of Rambo movies. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
While I agree with the anti-gun-control guys that "banning all guns" is just pissing into the wind, I can't help but be reminded of that Bugs Bunny cartoon where he was battling that little alien dude, and they kept whipping out bigger and bigger guns, alllllll the way into space! This ultimately blew up the world, yet somehow they both lived. We should be so lucky.
Sadly, at this stage of the game, there are too many guns, both legal and illegal, in the hands of nutjobs who would think of using the gun for crime. Handguns, assault rifles, whatever. Of course the criminals aren't going to just hand in their stash of guns if they were banned.
There really isn't an easy answer to the whole gun crime solution other than stiff sentences for those select few who commit a crime with a gun. Sadly, that wouldn't have stopped this dude from killing 33 people since he was armed with guns that you could buy wherever, and be subjected to the 5 day waiting period for his handgun (if that still even exists).
Also, I think that the pro-gun lobby has shown little or no tact in pushing their cause since this latest tragedy:
*** disclaimer: I'm cross-posting these from another website, and did not find them on my own ***
I understand the logic behind what these ads are suggesting, but for s sake, has society really gone that far off the deep end that this would be necessary??!?!?! |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
^^ that's American mentality.
America is very different culturally from the rest of the developed world |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
America
- a country where sexual abstinence policies receive huge funding, support, and fanfare
- a country where even a mention of gun abstinence policies causes uproar and anger
:haha:
a 12-year-old American boy is shown by his father how to use a handgun, is allowed to play with it, etc.
But god forbid this boy sees a woman's naked breast!!! holy now THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER!!!
:stongue: :stongue: :haha: |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
America
- a country where sexual abstinence policies receive huge funding, support, and fanfare
- a country where even a mention of gun abstinence policies causes uproar and anger
:haha:
a 12-year-old American boy is shown by his father how to use a handgun, is allowed to play with it, etc.
But god forbid this boy sees a woman's naked breast!!! holy now THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER!!!
:stongue: :stongue: :haha: |
So you're arguing that in the case of stopping sex, sex abstinence is pointless, but in the case of stopping gun crimes, "gun abstinence" is valid? Both are pointless because people are going to have sex and people are going to use guns to murder and the people who break the law using a gun could give a rat's ass on the legality of getting a gun in the first place.
Let's say sex abstinence programs were successful for the general population. Do you think that would stop rapists?
Now let's say gun abstinence programs were successful for the general population. Do you think that would stop gun-carrying murderers? |
|
|
| XaNaX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
I understand the logic behind what these ads are suggesting, but for s sake, has society really gone that far off the deep end that this would be necessary??!?!?! |
Actually, I fully agree with those ads. There is still much ignorance in this country about concealed carry, the predominant myth is that concealed carry would cause cities to turn into the wild west where people are constantly shooting at each other. In fact, this has been proven repeatedly to be completely untrue and is basically propaganda created by liberals to justify banning concealed carry.
Why do I agree with the use of those ads? Imagine that you are in that classroom at Virginia Tech, and you have a clear shot at that fuking wackjob as he is trying to barricade a door. But your sidearm is locked in the trunk of your car because a campus regulation prevents a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit who has attended all required gun training from carrying his sidearm with him (or her). I don't know about you but I'd be pretty ing pissed if I was in that situation.
Lets face it people, the police cannot protect you. They especially cannot protect you in random wackjob shooting situations like this one. If you dial 911 how long does it take the cops to get to your house? The best protection against wackjobs and criminals is armed law abiding citizens. That wackjob in Virginia would have been long dead before he managed to kill 30 people. |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by XaNaX
Actually, I fully agree with those ads. There is still much ignorance in this country about concealed carry, the predominant myth is that concealed carry would cause cities to turn into the wild west where people are constantly shooting at each other. In fact, this has been proven repeatedly to be completely untrue and is basically propaganda created by liberals to justify banning concealed carry.
Why do I agree with the use of those ads? Imagine that you are in that classroom at Virginia Tech, and you have a clear shot at that fuking wackjob as he is trying to barricade a door. But your sidearm is locked in the trunk of your car because a campus regulation prevents a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit who has attended all required gun training from carrying his sidearm with him (or her). I don't know about you but I'd be pretty ing pissed if I was in that situation.
Lets face it people, the police cannot protect you. They especially cannot protect you in random wackjob shooting situations like this one. If you dial 911 how long does it take the cops to get to your house? The best protection against wackjobs and criminals is armed law abiding citizens. That wackjob in Virginia would have been long dead before he managed to kill 30 people. |
But that was my whole point...has gotten so far out of hand that everyone needs to pack heat? Again, I understand the logic, but I feel sad for those who have to live by it.
I know what you're saying about the paranoia of having some bigass shootout at the mall, where everyone tries to be a hero, and there's some huge shootout. I understand that that situation is (hopefully) in the extreme. But, if there was concealed carry at this school, and several people tried to be the hero, in the fog of battle how would anyone know who the student gunman was and who the student hero's were? Wouldn't that situation have the potential for more innocent lives to be taken, even if they were only trying to help?
I'm honestly not on either side of this argument, since I don't think either side holds much water. |
|
|
| Dj O'Callaghan |
:stongue:
So you give people sidearms what happens when a random fight breaks out or someone loses their temper?
If you ask me they should give you guys low power rifles for hunting and shotguns. You don't need a f*cking Streyr or an M4 Carbine to protect your home in random surburbia.
Before anyone asks no I'm not a Liberal. But there is a time and a place for guns. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
So you're arguing that in the case of stopping sex, sex abstinence is pointless, but in the case of stopping gun crimes, "gun abstinence" is valid? Both are pointless because people are going to have sex and people are going to use guns to murder and the people who break the law using a gun could give a rat's ass on the legality of getting a gun in the first place.
Let's say sex abstinence programs were successful for the general population. Do you think that would stop rapists?
Now let's say gun abstinence programs were successful for the general population. Do you think that would stop gun-carrying murderers? |
dude youve missed my point completely. I was merely laughing at how twisted American culture is.
There is a twisted reversal in America of what, to the rest of the developed world, is normal and okay, and what is not. Of what there should be an uproar about, and what there shouldn't be. |
|
|
|
|
