The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Phoenix Wright]

Let's debate that in this thread. I'll start off by posting what I wrote on my myspace blog:

I'm not really in the mood to write a whole essay so I'm just going to lay out all of the facts. First I'll cover the how gun control is counter-productive, then I'll cover how the 2nd amendment would've prevented this from happening.

First and foremost, Gun Control is not the answer to the problem of gun violence. Illegalizing guns, only disarms the general population because Criminals don't follow laws. Making firearms illegal does not affect a criminals desire to obtain a firearm nor does it make getting a firearm any harder to get due to the fact that any person can get a firearm through the black-market.

It's not like a criminal will wake up one day and think "aw shit, they just passed another gun control law today. And they say that the people are "safer" shit, i can't shoot a safe person."

Look at how easy it is to get cocaine, weed, and heroin.Think that a gun ban would work any better? I think not. People who want guns will get them, period.

In the case of the VaTech Shooting, there was a gun ban in effect inside of the school. This gun ban passed around a year or so ago. The justification for this gun ban was to keep the school "safe." Then look at what happened...

A criminal walking into a school with the intention to kill people will think twice before doing so if he knows that some of the students will be able to effectively fight back. If the Students in this school had the right to carry their arms, this piece of shit would have gotten his head blown off by a law abiding student and far less deaths would have occured.

In the Appelachian Law School, also in virginia, a similar school schooing ended abruptly only after 3 deaths after students ARMED WITH THEIR OWN FIREARMS stopped the gunman.

In Israeli Schools, faculty and staff are allowed to carry concealed firearms in school premises. You don't hear about school shootings over there do you?

Did the gun ban help the students in the VAtech case? No. it resulted in the death of 33 people.

Did the police stop anything from happened? No. They stood there doing nothing for over 4 hours while this nutjob killed 33 people.

Over 2 million crimes are thwarted by citizens with legally owned firearms every year. The police just can not match that kind of efficiency. The police only show up after the crime was commited and promise to find the person responsible.

And they're telling us that they want to take our guns away to keep us safe. Wel, you know how the saying goes, they can take our guns, "from our cold dead hands." (well, not me, yet...)

and kiddo's:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Darko]

Gun control doesn't help. It just inconvinces hunters. I can go out tonight and buy a gun. End of Debate.

[VruS]

Here are the two sides :

Pro gun : I need protection. Banning guns would mean only criminals would get them. It is in the (american) constitution. i have a right to defend myself. If every good person had a gun, vtec massacre wouldn't be this bad.

anti-gun:I need protection. Guns kill people. The less chance to aquire a gun, the likelier I'm not gonna get shot. If guns were illegal, vtec massacre probably wouldn't have happened, since mr korean bought legally from a store. fuck guns.


personally as long as a person passes a psych/behaviour exam and has a licensed training for firearm, i don't see a reason why he/she shouldn't own a weapon for personal protection.

My solution:
Make guns restricted. Make the license to own very expensive, and use that money to enhance border protection from illegal firearms.

[Jida]

Phoenix Wright pretty much did it for me with his first post. There are so many ways that shooting could've been prevented.

[Windlord0]

Here are the two sides :

Pro gun : I need protection. Banning guns would mean only criminals would get them. It is in the (american) constitution. i have a right to defend myself. If every good person had a gun, vtec massacre wouldn't be this bad.

anti-gun:I need protection. Guns kill people. The less chance to aquire a gun, the likelier I'm not gonna get shot. If guns were illegal, vtec massacre probably wouldn't have happened, since mr korean bought legally from a store. fuck guns.


personally as long as a person passes a psych/behaviour exam and has a licensed training for firearm, i don't see a reason why he/she shouldn't own a weapon for personal protection.

My solution:
Make guns restricted. Make the license to own very expensive, and use that money to enhance border protection from illegal firearms.

That's a great solution. Poor people don't deserve to be able to protect themselves.

The VT tragedy would have still happened even if guns were compeletely banned. He wanted to kill people, and I am certain that he would have found a way. The event wouldn't have gotten the prestige of being the largest shooting event in history and would have instead gone down as a not so large bomb attack, or something else.

Good post Pheonix, I couldn't agree more.

[Rodimus]

Gun control is a tricky topic. Like chris rock said a few years ago f^ gun control just raise the price of bullets!!.

Nah, but its hard you can have test for people, you can have expensive bullets, shoot you can even make a gun license crazy expensive. but if somebody wants a gun they will get to it.

colleges just have to step up security. There has to be better training to deal with certain situations. Have guards in regular clothes just like students.

These events are tragic, we have to expect the best but prepare for the worst. True prices will go up, but we gotta do something to keep students and people in general safe.

[versus addict]

Over 2 million crimes are thwarted by citizens with legally owned firearms every year. The police just can not match that kind of efficiency.

Proof?

I dunno, throw a bunch of guns into the situation and what do we get? Arguments over girls, parking spaces and other minor shit can get deadly blown out of proportion. There is no shortage of immature jackasses in school or society...none of which I want armed. Not saying they don't have the right...just that they perhaps need some training and a level head to avoid more BS.

Just because you can have a gun doesn't mean that you are trained to use it accurately or responsible. Perhaps take a certification course so you know how to shoot and when and where not to shoot?

Lots of complex issues....not solved by throwing a lot of heat at the situation.

I'm all for getting trained qualified security installed that knows how to deal with a threat rather than lots of kids armed and feeling invincible.

[Renegade]

I'm a big advocate of gun control or anything, but the VT shooter did legally buy both of those handguns. VA has some of the loosest gun control laws in the country.

[Phoenix Wright]

Gun control is a tricky topic. Like chris rock said a few years ago f^ gun control just raise the price of bullets!!.

Nah, but its hard you can have test for people, you can have expensive bullets, shoot you can even make a gun license crazy expensive. but if somebody wants a gun they will get to it.

colleges just have to step up security. There has to be better training to deal with certain situations. Have guards in regular clothes just like students.

These events are tragic, we have to expect the best but prepare for the worst. True prices will go up, but we gotta do something to keep students and people in general safe.

Giving Psychological tests will do nothing. If a Nutjob can't get a gun from a gun store as a reult of him failing the psyc. He will get it illegally. Period. Expensive bullets won't solve anything because if someone wants to commit a crime, he will do it regardless of the price of the bullet. You got it right, if someone wants to, they will do it.

Gun control is as effective as keeping your girlfriend on stalker like-lockdown. Nomatter how much you restrict her from going out, talking on the phone and doing what she wants. She will cheat if she wants and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

The only answer is to have a population that can defend themselves with their own firearms. common sense and lord knows how many events prove that the best protection is self protection. Not by some cop or guard that shows up after the fact.

[buyproduct]

I dont completly agree with all of your "facts". The one statement I dont agree with is this one:
"Did the gun ban help the students in the VAtech case? No. it resulted in the death of 33 people. "

There is no way of knowing that. You assume because a student has a gun that everyone around him would act rationally after he has pulled it out. Think about it. You hear gunshots in a room next door and all of a sudden a kid in your class pulls out a gun to defend himself. You have no idea if that kid is in on it with the other shooter or not. What most likley would happen is that when said person pulls out gun everyone in the room would go crazy and start running towards the nearest exit only to be met with the other gunman at the door. The one kid now who pulled the gun has to now shoot through crowds of people to attempt to hit the original gunman. People would die in the crossfire. In the end he may get the gunman and end it but he also may kill some of his classmates. Friendly fire happens in war, its bound to happen in situations like this as well. If they were in an open area the gun ban may have been detrimental but in tight closed area like that there is no way of telling.

Another thing I would like to say is that irrational people do irrational things. When I went to college I remeber seeing many premed kids crying and punching walls because they recieved a low mark on an exam. As TA in college now I encounter students who after discussing there grades with you get upset with me because I wont change their grades and then start yelling insults at me. If these kids were all allowed to carry conceald weapons they might do something foolish. Many people would not want to work in an environment where that is possible.

This is just my opinion.

[pherai]

Just because you can have a gun doesn't mean that you are trained to use it accurately or responsible. Perhaps take a certification course so you know how to shoot and when and where not to shoot?

Then they will be missing anyone they are angry with! It solves itself

[Windlord0]

Proof?

I dunno, throw a bunch of guns into the situation and what do we get? Arguments over girls, parking spaces and other minor shit can get deadly blown out of proportion. There is no shortage of immature jackasses in school or society...none of which I want armed. Not saying they don't have the right...just that they perhaps need some training and a level head to avoid more BS.

Just because you can have a gun doesn't mean that you are trained to use it accurately or responsible. Perhaps take a certification course so you know how to shoot and when and where not to shoot?

Lots of complex issues....not solved by throwing a lot of heat at the situation.

I'm all for getting trained qualified security installed that knows how to deal with a threat rather than lots of kids armed and feeling invincible.

I don't recall hearing the number 2 million, but that's possible. I do hear stories about it happening almost every day though.

The thing is that any of those people who are going to shoot you over some small stuff are still committing a crime (before they try and shoot you). To get a CCW/CHL permit to carry a firearm concealed with you, you need to take a course and pass it in order to get that. The course is short, but it at least evaluates your ability to use a firearm safely and the instructor can deny you that liscense if they want. Any instructor would have denied the killer a CCW permit becuase of the way he was said to be acting. It is a crime to carry concealed without a permit. Just like people without a liscense can still drive a car into someone, a person can carry a gun illegally and use it.

[Phoenix Wright]

Proof?

I dunno, throw a bunch of guns into the situation and what do we get? .

There are around 32 states with minimal gun control laws; how often do you hear about that in those states? not very often. It's not like the Wild west (which is highly misrepresented in movies) in those states.

Stupid shit like that usually ocurs in high crime areas like NYC, Chicago and whatnot. Where guns are virtually banned.

Cities/States with limited to no gun control laws have a far less murder rate-per capita then cities/states with extreme gun control. That's a fact. Compare the murder rate in Arlington VA to the one in Washington DC.

[Phoenix Wright]

I dont completly agree with all of your "facts". The one statement I dont agree with is this one:
"Did the gun ban help the students in the VAtech case? No. it resulted in the death of 33 people. "

There is no way of knowing that. You assume because a student has a gun that everyone around him would act rationally after he has pulled it out. Think about it. You hear gunshots in a room next door and all of a sudden a kid in your class pulls out a gun to defend himself. You have no idea if that kid is in on it with the other shooter or not. What most likley would happen is that when said person pulls out gun everyone in the room would go crazy and start running towards the nearest exit only to be met with the other gunman at the door. The one kid now who pulled the gun has to now shoot through crowds of people to attempt to hit the original gunman. People would die in the crossfire. In the end he may get the gunman and end it but he also may kill some of his classmates. Friendly fire happens in war, its bound to happen in situations like this as well. If they were in an open area the gun ban may have been detrimental but in tight closed area like that there is no way of telling.


Shootings have occured in other colleges that have resulted in the students fighting back and killed the crazed shooter and what you mentioned in your post did not happen. Everyone in the room would see that one student is shooting at people/executing people. The second that everyone notices that ANOTHER student shoots the nutjob, all will stop.

[Storming Flower]

what about australia, who used to have mass shootings every so often until they completely revitalized gun control laws, and haven't had one in 10 years? I heard this on cnn last night.

[spudlyff8fan]

There are lotsa ways the shooting could've been prevented. But he was pretty commited to killing people.

What if he took his car and ran down 32 people? What if he made molotov cocktails? What if he made a bomb?

Should they ban cars, vodka, gasoline and fertilizer?

[Phoenix Wright]

what about australia, who used to have mass shootings every so often until they completely revitalized gun control laws, and haven't had one in 10 years? I heard this on cnn last night.

Yeah but according to a 10 year study, the gun laws have only decresed the suicide rate, but the murder rate remains the around the same.

Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

[P. Gorath]

I'm not really in the mood to write a whole essay so I'm just going to lay out all of the facts. First I'll cover the how gun control is counter-productive, then I'll cover how the 2nd amendment would've prevented this from happening.

First and foremost, Gun Control is not the answer to the problem of gun violence. Illegalizing guns, only disarms the general population because Criminals don't follow laws. Making firearms illegal does not affect a criminals desire to obtain a firearm nor does it make getting a firearm any harder to get due to the fact that any person can get a firearm through the black-market.

It's not like a criminal will wake up one day and think "aw shit, they just passed another gun control law today. And they say that the people are "safer" shit, i can't shoot a safe person."

Look at how easy it is to get cocaine, weed, and heroin.Think that a gun ban would work any better? I think not. People who want guns will get them, period.We can apply this same argument to any laws on the books. Restricting high powered automatic weapons, waiting periods, background checks, all are helpful tools to curbing gun violence.

In the case of the VaTech Shooting, there was a gun ban in effect inside of the school. This gun ban passed around a year or so ago. The justification for this gun ban was to keep the school "safe." Then look at what happened...
Ah go fuck yourself. A gun ban in a school isn't anything out of the ordinary. I don't know if you are familiar with that area of VA (just a guess: you aren't) but there are more citizens packing heat than most other places, and you can bet that despite the restriction, the whole campus population was not gun free.

A criminal walking into a school with the intention to kill people will think twice before doing so if he knows that some of the students will be able to effectively fight back. If the Students in this school had the right to carry their arms, this piece of shit would have gotten his head blown off by a law abiding student and far less deaths would have occured.You just argued against this very reasoning in your previous paragraph. A deranged criminal is going to shoot up where he wants, regardless of the consequences. Whether he thinks other people may be strapped does not hinder him in the slightest.

In Israeli Schools, faculty and staff are allowed to carry concealed firearms in school premises. You don't hear about school shootings over there do you?You are so right! I never hear about ANY violence happening in Israel :confused:

Did the gun ban help the students in the VAtech case? No. it resulted in the death of 33 people. Go-Fuck-Yourself.
Ronin Chaos had it right in the other thread. The VA Tech incident has jack isht to do with the gun control debate either way. There is essentially no way to prevent random violence from deranged individuals on a case by case basis. Are you saying the engineering students would have all had glocks in their bookbags in engineering class if this ban wasnt in effect? And what if students returning fire just urged the shooter to keep on his rampage even longer?

This guy killed a whole lot of people with some crappy guns...seems he was a pretty good shot. Who is to say others would have taken him down sooner?

Over 2 million crimes are thwarted by citizens with legally owned firearms every year. The police just can not match that kind of efficiency. The police only show up after the crime was commited and promise to find the person responsible.this is perhaps one of the stupidest things I have ever heard on this website. Did you go to NRAHOMOS.com before typing this or did you just pull it out of your ass? Why not disband the police force altogether and just rely on citizen militias? I'm sure that would work out real well.

[buyproduct]

Shootings have occured in other colleges that have resulted in the students fighting back and killed the crazed shooter and what you mentioned in your post did not happen. Everyone in the room would see that one student is shooting at people/executing people. The second that everyone notices that ANOTHER student shoots the nutjob, all will stop.

Can you give specific examples. You mentioned a law school. Law schools are not attended by teenagers, they are attend by mature individuals.

Even if the kids on campus were allowed to carry guns, this individual would have commited the crime. As you mentioned he was a nutjob. He didnt care about his own life. I doubt he would of cared if someone else killed him. He was just looking to take some people down with him.

[spudlyff8fan]

We can apply this same argument to any laws on the books. Restricting high powered automatic weapons, waiting periods, background checks, all are helpful tools to curbing gun violence.


Ah go fuck yourself. A gun ban in a school isn't anything out of the ordinary. I don't know if you are familiar with that area of VA (just a guess: you aren't) but there are more citizens packing heat than most other places, and you can bet that despite the restriction, the whole campus population was not gun free.

You just argued against this very reasoning in your previous paragraph. A deranged criminal is going to shoot up where he wants, regardless of the consequences. Whether he thinks other people may be strapped does not hinder him in the slightest.

You are so right! I never hear about ANY violence happening in Israel :confused:

Go-Fuck-Yourself.
Ronin Chaos had it right in the other thread. The VA Tech incident has jack isht to do with the gun control debate either way. There is essentially no way to prevent random violence from deranged individuals on a case by case basis. Are you saying the engineering students would have all had glocks in their bookbags in engineering class if this ban wasnt in effect? And what if students returning fire just urged the shooter to keep on his rampage even longer?

This guy killed a whole lot of people with some crappy guns...seems he was a pretty good shot. Who is to say others would have taken him down sooner?

this is perhaps one of the stupidest things I have ever heard on this website. Did you go to NRAHOMOS.com before typing this or did you just pull it out of your ass? Why not disband the police force altogether and just rely on citizen militias? I'm sure that would work out real well.

Once again. If you're committed to killing people, which he obviously was, then he would've figured out a way to do it WITHOUT a gun. The gun control wouldn't have stopped him, because there are many, many ways to kill people.

And even so, if they shut down every gun shop in America, what would that do other than put alot of inbred hicks out of jobs?

[Phoenix Wright]

"We can apply this same argument to any laws on the books. Restricting high powered automatic weapons, waiting periods, background checks, all are helpful tools to curbing gun violence.'

No they are not, If a criminal can not get a gun legally, he will get it illegaly. Guns are virtually banned where I live and criminals still get a hold of them and kill/rob/ shoot people.


"A gun ban in a school isn't anything out of the ordinary. I don't know if you are familiar with that area of VA but there are more citizens packing heat than most other places, and you can bet that despite the restriction, the whole campus population was not gun free. "

Yes, the state for the most part has very little gun-control. Obviously in that area where that dude was shooting, noone had the means to protect themselves. Obviously noone in the area where this guy was shooting was armed due to the fact that there was no resistance from the students.

"You just argued against this very reasoning in your previous paragraph. A deranged criminal is going to shoot up where he wants, regardless of the consequences. Whether he thinks other people may be strapped does not hinder him in the slightest. "

Yes it does, I said that a gun ban isnt going to stop him from getting a gun if he wants However the potential of an armed resistance will deter him or, in the case if a non-pussy student were armed, he'd be fought back against.


"You are so right! I never hear about ANY violence happening in Israel :confused: "

You don't see any school shootings there do you?


"Ronin Chaos had it right in the other thread. The VA Tech incident has jack isht to do with the gun control debate either way. There is essentially no way to prevent random violence from deranged individuals on a case by case basis. Are you saying the engineering students would have all had glocks in their bookbags in engineering class if this ban wasnt in effect? And what if students returning fire just urged the shooter to keep on his rampage even longer? "

No, I'm saying that if at least 1 student had a gun and was willing to defend himself in the area where this lunatic was shooting, there would be far less deaths. As I stated in the case of the law school... Loonie went in to try to shoot up the school, and a group of law abiding students took him out. End of story.

"This guy killed a whole lot of people with some crappy guns...seems he was a pretty good shot. Who is to say others would have taken him down sooner?"

Noone, but it's better than staying there without any means of self-defense.

"this is perhaps one of the stupidest things I have ever heard on this website. Did you go to NRAHOMOS.com before typing this or did you just pull it out of your ass?

Err, the justice department. Look it up.

[Phoenix Wright]

Can you give specific examples. You mentioned a law school. Law schools are not attended by teenagers, they are attend by mature individuals.

Even if the kids on campus were allowed to carry guns, this individual would have commited the crime. As you mentioned he was a nutjob. He didnt care about his own life. I doubt he would of cared if someone else killed him. He was just looking to take some people down with him.

Yes he would have commited the crime, but like what happened in the law school far fewer deaths would have occured if the students had firearms to defend themselves with.

[spudlyff8fan]

You can't use this event to advocate pro-gun causes any more so than you can for anti-gun. Less so, probably.

[Wild Kitty]

The big flaw with your argument of "If a nearby student had a gun, they would have stopped the shooter earlier" is the fact that unless the student was being fired upon, I really doubt that would happen.

I don't think a random student who was never in the military or police force would run down the hall to be the hero if he heard gunshots being fired nearby. The first instinct is to RUN AWAY FROM THE FUCKING SOUND OF BULLETS. Noone wants to be near that shit. You're not going to run AT it just because you have a gun. If you were being fired upon, then yes, but you're still going to retreat. That's just the way people work. Noone would want to be in that situation.

[P. Gorath]

Once again. If you're committed to killing people, which he obviously was, then he would've figured out a way to do it WITHOUT a gun. The gun control wouldn't have stopped him, because there are many, many ways to kill people.

And even so, if they shut down every gun shop in America, what would that do other than put alot of inbred hicks out of jobs?
Uh, is this directed towards me? Because I didnt argue against anything you just said.

[Night]

It's almost like a political debate where both sides will never be convinced. And it seems for the most part that gun nuts and anti-gun folks have similar ties to political sides as well.

gun nut: Everyone in the country should legally be able to have a gun for free as soon as they're able to carry one! This crazy shooter killed people, the gun didn't and if everyone on campus had a gun, that shooter would've been stopped after killing just one person or maybe wouldn't have even gone crazy at all because he'd know he'd be capped very quickly!

[Windlord0]

First off I don't think anyone was saying the police should be disbanded. It is still a positive moment when someone defends themselves against an attacker. A criminal was stopped and someone who would have been made a victim was safe. That doesn't mean we don't need cops.

There are a lot of good gun laws. Waiting periods are good. Background checks are very good. Neither of these are economically based. They are only based on you being a good citizen, which everyone can do, regardless of economic level. I don't think that means any law would have stopped this person. Even if another student had a gun, he still would have killed several people. Gun control was not the issue in this event. The issues as I see it are why nobody noticed this problem and got this kid help, and why the school did not have an emergency plan in place to alert students.

Finally, since when is a glock 19 or a p22 a crappy gun? A hi-point is a crappy gun. I don't like glocks or the p22, but they are both solid guns. The accuracy on both of those is fine, and I know the glock at least is crazy reliable. In fact what is even the point of saying that? Are you implying that the killer was a really good shot? Does being a good shot matter against unarmed people kneeling in front of you?

The big flaw with your argument of "If a nearby student had a gun, they would have stopped the shooter earlier" is the fact that unless the student was being fired upon, I really doubt that would happen.

I don't think a random student who was never in the military or police force would run down the hall to be the hero if he heard gunshots being fired nearby. The first instinct is to RUN AWAY FROM THE FUCKING SOUND OF BULLETS. Noone wants to be near that shit. You're not going to run AT it just because you have a gun. If you were being fired upon, then yes, but you're still going to retreat. That's just the way people work. Noone would want to be in that situation.

In a few handgun magazines there is a section each month called something like "It happened to me." They are all stories about how normal people defended themselves or others. People try to protect others more than you'd believe.

Also the idea was that the student was nearby. As soon as the shooter has his back turned or his attention somewhere else the armed student would have a chance to draw and fire. That is still a purely defensive instinct, as the shooter would turn on you eventually.

[R.P.D rookie]

Like it was said earlier in the thread, perhaps personel/campus security that are allowed to carry guns.


Too many idiots in college to allow them to carry their own weapons and that's before they even start getting drunk.

[Doc Holliday]

Proof?

My dad is a cop and obviously pro-gun when it comes to law-abiding citizens owning them. He just shot an email out to my family talking about the V-Tech situation. In that email he says:

I agree Mark. I'm the first cop to tell people they have to rely on their own wits and their own ability to self-sustain if they are attacked. The simple fact is I'm 90 seconds to three minutes away from most any urgent call, even driving all out. Unless I get real lucky and I happen to be a block away when something bad happens, most people need to rely on themselves for self-protection. It's just the reality of law enforcement logistics I'm afraid.

You heard it from a cop. You don't need statistics for this one, just common sense. Cops aren't omnipresent. There is reaction time involved in going to a call and a lot of it is just how close you are when one comes out.

Here's another article he found about V-Tech that's pretty interesting:

VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE
State quashed bill allowing handguns on campuses
College spokesman celebrated 2006 defeat because it would help make campus safe

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 16, 2007
3:15 p.m. Eastern


By Art Moore
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Virginia state capitol
More than one year before today's unprecedented shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, the state's General Assembly quashed a bill that would have given qualified college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus.

At the time, Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said he was happy to hear of the bill's defeat, according to the Roanoke Times.

"I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus," the Virginia Tech spokesman said.

At least 32 people were killed today at Virginia Tech in the worst campus shooting in U.S. history.

(Story continues below)


The proposal, House Bill 1572, was initiated by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

But the bill didn't pass its first stage, the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety.


Todd Gilbert

Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus.

Backers of the bill wanted to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."

The bill's sponsor, Gilbert, told WND that with today's tragedy still unfolding, he is uncomfortable commenting and cannot assert the university's policy in any way contributed to the shooting. But he said, nevertheless, it's clear it couldn't have stopped the attack.

"The one thing that this tragic event does illustrate is that there is not a single gun law, rule or regulation that will stop someone with this kind of evil intent from going about their business and taking life at will, if they are committed to doing that," Gilbert said.

While advocates of gun control often believe they are improving safety, they are depriving law-abiding citizens from defending themselves in dangerous situations, he contended.

"Had I been on campus today, and otherwise been entitled to carry firearms for protection and been deprived of that, I don't think words can describe how I would have felt, knowing I could have stopped something like this," Gilbert said.

People who are willing to jump through all the legal hoops necessary to get a weapons permit usually are not people society needs to worry about, he argued.

In the spring of 2005, a Virginia Tech student who had a concealed handgun permit was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, the Roanoke paper reported. Second Amendment groups questioned the university's authority, but the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police argued against guns on campus.

In June 2006, Virginia Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy that reaffirmed the school's ban.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55226

Bottom line is that people think only 5 minutes in front of their faces. You throw gun control into the mix, the only thing that you're regulating is the decent citizen's ability to own a gun, not the criminal's. You think a criminal gets their arms by law-abiding means? Not so much. What if the gun bill had passed for V-Tech? The outcome could have been much less dire.

[spudlyff8fan]

Uh, is this directed towards me? Because I didnt argue against anything you just said.

Nah, it wasn't really directed towards anyone. Just kinda throwing it out there.

I just hate it when people make crappy arguments. Regardless of my stance on the issue.

[Wild Kitty]

Windlord, you misunderstood what I wrote.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to be a hero and try to shoot someone you know has a gun. If you are being fired upon, YES. I stated that. If you are near the shooting, no. Odds are you want to get the fuck away from it. You have no idea how many of them there could be, what kind of guns they may have or other things. The dude could have a bomb strapped to his chest and you're running right at it thinking he only has a gun.

Do you understand now?

[P. Gorath]

In a few handgun magazines there is a section each month called something like "It happened to me." They are all stories about how normal people defended themselves or others. People try to protect others more than you'd believe.

There is also a section in a few "adult" magazines called "(name of magazine) letters." They are all stories about how normal people stumbled into the most awesome threesomes, orgies, and on-the-job hookups. People have random sex with supermodels more than you'd believe.

[spudlyff8fan]

I wish...

[P. Gorath]

snip
You do know that quoting World Net Daily is only slightly less reliable than quoting ann coulter, right? Do they still have the article on the proper way to hang coloureds from trees posted on their site?

[Doc Holliday]

There is also a section in a few "adult" magazines called "(name of magazine) letters." They are all stories about how normal people stumbled into the most awesome threesomes, orgies, and on-the-job hookups. People have random sex with supermodels more than you'd believe.

Dumbest fucking analogy I've probably ever heard. Seriously.


You do know that quoting World Net Daily is only slightly less reliable than quoting ann coulter, right? Do they still have the article on the proper way to hang coloureds from trees posted on their site?

Whether YOU think it's reliable or not doesn't change the fact that they did in fact attempt to implement a gun bill last year (actually, I believe it was '05) that was put down. The point I was trying to make before your smugness overwhelmed my 5 senses was that if the bill had passed, it could've changed the outcome in a more positive manner. If you want to count less deaths as more positive.

[Windlord0]

There is also a section in a few "adult" magazines called "(name of magazine) letters." They are all stories about how normal people stumbled into the most awesome threesomes, orgies, and on-the-job hookups. People have random sex with supermodels more than you'd believe.

Well I have never met someone who has slept with a super model, but I have met two people who have had their events published in a magazine. There are also the news paper articles that would verify the events. Unless of course every news paper that reports on one of these events is also some right wing conspiracy.

Don't let me interrput you from arguing over miniscule points though. Maybe you can find a word I spelled wrong and use that to soundly defeat my entire argument.

Windlord, you misunderstood what I wrote.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you're going to be a hero and try to shoot someone you know has a gun. If you are being fired upon, YES. I stated that. If you are near the shooting, no. Odds are you want to get the fuck away from it. You have no idea how many of them there could be, what kind of guns they may have or other things. The dude could have a bomb strapped to his chest and you're running right at it thinking he only has a gun.

Do you understand now?

I understand that people will naturally run from a situation like this. You are right that most people will get the hell out. This doesn't completely remove that chance that someone could have shot the guy and stopped it. Someone down the hall would not do it, but it is my understanding that he was walking into classrooms filled with 20+ people who then all had no way out. If any one of them had a gun, then they would have probably acted.

[P. Gorath]

anecdotes are not science

[Tripple]

Yeah but according to a 10 year study, the gun laws have only decresed the suicide rate, but the murder rate remains the around the same.

Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html

The reason the gun thing came about here was because of a mass shooting though. worst in history or something 36 people killed.

Personally i think the idea that everyday people can walk around with a gun is completely retarded. The whole argument about needing the is silly. Its claimed that if they can't get them legally they will just get them illegally, well isn't that a problem then.

What said is true it makes no difference if guns are illegal or not if the ease of getting them doesn't change. There's the problem people shouldn't be able to get guns legally or illegally.

For example the killings that took place a while with the kids wearing trenchcoats, the one which was blamed on gta, didn't they just take their parents guns, if their parents didn't have guns I am quite certain those shootings wouldn't have taken place.

Unfortunately theres no simple solution to the problem mostly because of the gun culture over their

[FurryCurry]

Gibberish Garbage
^^^^

[spudlyff8fan]

The reason the gun thing came about here was because of a mass shooting though. worst in history or something 36 people killed.

Personally i think the idea that everyday people can walk around with a gun is completely retarded. The whole argument about needing the is silly. Its claimed that if they can't get them legally they will just get them illegally, well isn't that a problem then.

What said is true it makes no difference if guns are illegal or not if the ease of getting them doesn't change. There's the problem people shouldn't be able to get guns legally or illegally.

For example the killings that took place a while with the kids wearing trenchcoats, the one which was blamed on gta, didn't they just take their parents guns, if their parents didn't have guns I am quite certain those shootings wouldn't have taken place.

Unfortunately theres no simple solution to the problem mostly because of the gun culture over their

See? This is what I was talking about with the whole "I hate it when people can't make a point."

[Doc Holliday]

I hate that you guys are debating about gun control.

The rest of the developed world looks at America like "Why are you guys still packin da heat!?" It's our bloody culture and it's sad. Outside of hunting we really shouldn't have to have guns yet for every Dudley Do-Right there's a Jacky Done-Wrong (don't ask).

The idea that if someone had a gun there would have been a quick remedy to the situation. Cho probably walked in on them with the gun pointed out. If you had a gun the chances that you could whip it out and take him out seem pretty slim.

More or less guns wouldn't have saved this people. He was a lost kid and they were terrififed innocent bystanders, period. Not a bunch of potential heroes (Granted I'm sure if all of them rushed at him at the same time throwing chairs we'd have half the people dead but people are all about self preservation and death is something we all fear).

The hearts of people have to change. Not the weapons they wield.

Yeah. I'm failing to see what you're getting at here. It's a bunch of irrelevant shit strung together to form a couple of paragraphs.

[FurryCurry]

Yeah. I'm failing to see what you're getting at here. It's a bunch of irrelevant shit strung together to form a couple of paragraphs.

Edit.... I suck at these debate thingies.

My issue is people trying to relate gun control to this tragic event.

I will say this though, if it was impossible for him to obtain a gun legally then I highly doubt that Cho would have murdered this many people. Cho, from all the news reports and statments given by people 'close' to him, he was a completely lost college student that stayed on the straight and narrow. He was about being annoymous and acquring a gun illegally doesn't seem like it would match his personality.

And I really don't have an opinion about gun control either way. If it's not a criminal killing for a means to an end, it's your uncle killing his wife over a divorce. Banning firearms won't solve the problems that cause people to pick up weapons in offense in the first place but it would probably reduce the amount of normally 'good' citizens from doing so (refering to the recent murders in Troy, MI).

[spudlyff8fan]

That's a pretty terrible post, Curry.

[FurryCurry]

That's a pretty terrible post, Curry.

*mumbles*

fixed.

[Doc Holliday]

Edit.... I suck at these debate thingies.

My issue is people trying to relate gun control to this tragic event.

I will say this though, if it was impossible for him to obtain a gun legally then I highly doubt that Cho would have murdered this many people. Cho, from all the news reports and statments given by people 'close' to him, he was a completely lost college student that stayed on the straight and narrow. He was about being annoymous and acquring a gun illegally doesn't seem like it would match his personality.

And I really don't have an opinion about gun control either way. If it's not a criminal killing for a means to an end, it's your uncle killing his wife over a divorce. Banning firearms won't solve the problems that cause people to pick up weapons in offense in the first place but it would probably reduce the amount of normally 'good' citizens from doing so (refering to the recent murders in Troy, MI).

Actually, I meant to quote Trippy's post but the one that was yours that I quoted basically did the same thing.

And also, I'd like to know how Cho got his sidearms before I comment on that. By your description of his personality, he doesn't seem like he'd get one legally either. Why would he need a gun to begin with?

But this post has contradictions all over the place.

If it's not a criminal killing for a means to an end, it's your uncle killing his wife over a divorce.

He doesn't need a gun to do that which you say here in the next sentence:

Banning firearms won't solve the problems that cause people to pick up weapons in offense in the first place but it would probably reduce the amount of normally 'good' citizens from doing so

So on one hand you're saying that some uncle is killing his wife over a divorce with a gun but then you say that people will pick up weapons anyways so it doesn't matter if he has access to a gun.

Then you say that that banning them would reduce the amount of death performed by 'good' citizens. Banning them would also reduce the defense of citizens vs 'good' citizens.

Example: The uncle that kills his wife. If the wife had access to a gun , she might be able to defend herself again the husband.

Or maybe I'm just not reading your post right.

[Irennicus]

Once again. If you're committed to killing people, which he obviously was, then he would've figured out a way to do it WITHOUT a gun. The gun control wouldn't have stopped him, because there are many, many ways to kill people.

And even so, if they shut down every gun shop in America, what would that do other than put alot of inbred hicks out of jobs?

I disagree with pretty much everything you just said. If he didn't have a gun and he wanted to kill lots and lots of people he would've had to either gas the place or bomb the place. Bombing it is much different and takes foresight and usually other people to make sure you aren't getting caught onto while you're setting shit up. Not to mention it's usually expensive as fuck.

The only 'way' he could've just done it otherwise cheaply that I can see is with pipe bombs. That still requires a good amount of foresight and work. You don't know what mentality the guy was in when he started killing people. Don't assume that if he didn't have a gun this would've happened anyways. Truthfully, you don't know.

And since most hicks are in regular blue-collar jobs, I think they'd do just fine.

[versus addict]

I don't have an issue with responsible people owning and carrying guns/protecting themselves....its people who are emotionally unstable. People get shot over girlfriends, parking spaces, road rage and a ton of other BS.

If everybody in college was armed yeah...they'll take out a jackass like this nappy headed Cho emotard. But other than that...its not such a good idea IMO.

[Irennicus]

I don't have an issue with responsible people owning and carrying guns/protecting themselves....its people who are emotionally unstable. People get shot over girlfriends, parking spaces, road rage and a ton of other BS.

If everybody in college was armed yeah...they'll take out a jackass like this nappy headed Cho emotard. But other than that...its not such a good idea IMO.

The issue with this is that people become mentally unstable. Most men don't develop schizophrenia until their late thirties if I remember correctly. There's no way to psychologically analyze someone and say "They'll be fine for another five years". They might start suffering from symptoms of bi-polar disorder the next fucking week. Who the fuck knows.

[spudlyff8fan]

You don't remember correctly. Schizophrenia usually starts at around the beginning of puberty and shows up in full-force 10 years later. So yeah, at age 23 he definitely could've had full-blown schizophrenia by then.

But yeah, unless they have a violent history that has been reported to the police, how would they know who's mentally unstable?

[Phoenix Wright]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2807602702866411553&hl=en

Penn and Teller on Gun Control. I don't agree with them on every single topic; however i do believe that they nailed the Gun Control issue right on the head.

[Taichi]

I'm all for gun control laws.

because I don't need to pass a background check to buy a back-alley AK-47. :rofl:














Actually, this is one issue I'm totally conservative about. Fuck Gun Laws, and Fuck these weepy bitches who want to give away our constitutional rights.

To Quote Charlton Heston: "From My Cold Dead Hands!"

come to take my guns, leave with a sucking chest wound.

[Azrael]

For me, the whole "we need guns to defend ourselves!" is like our whole nuclear missile problem on a much smaller scale.

America has nukes. Russia has nukes. China has nukes. Some other countries have nukes. We don't want the nukes, cause we know if we used them then all shit would go off and we'd royally fuck over the entire planet. Yet, we can't get rid of the nukes, because the other guys have em and we don't trust them. What we should be doing is, as countries, find a way to get along so that we don't have to be all paranoid about being able to respond in force should the situation arise.

In the same vein, rather than arm yourself for protection, I feel that we should be working to never have to worry about having to protect ourselves in that way. I mean, I would much rather sleep safer at night knowing that I wasn't at risk of a home invasion, rather than sleep soundly knowing I have a gun under my bed for when the criminal comes.

If for no other reason, I think guns should be limited to cut down on accidental deaths/crimes of passion murders.

[FOBio]

so wait, if everybody had a gun then people would be afraid to start shit? ok, i'll buy the fact that they won't want to make a scene. after all, why piss off the guy you're pissed off at if he can kill you. instead, i'll just play it cool, wait for him to walk away, then shoot him, the people he's with, and run away without anybody around me.

people love doing selfish shit if they can get away with it and/or have low risk. example: shoplifting a CD or downloading one. which has less risk? which do you do?


by your reasoning about "people can get guns legally or illegally, so what's the use?" can also be applied to driving a car. the DMV and cops can't stop you from stealing car keys or hotwiring a car if you really wanted to. so what's the use? for those that actually follow the rules, it prevents the amount of cars on the road. it also increases the amount of licensed (and therefore trained) people to drive. less people and less inexperienced drivers = less accidents and less deaths. likewise, less guns and less inexperienced shooters = less accidents and less deaths.

[ramza]

For me, the whole "we need guns to defend ourselves!" is like our whole nuclear missile problem on a much smaller scale.

America has nukes. Russia has nukes. China has nukes. Some other countries have nukes. We don't want the nukes, cause we know if we used them then all shit would go off and we'd royally fuck over the entire planet. Yet, we can't get rid of the nukes, because the other guys have em and we don't trust them. What we should be doing is, as countries, find a way to get along so that we don't have to be all paranoid about being able to respond in force should the situation arise.

In the same vein, rather than arm yourself for protection, I feel that we should be working to never have to worry about having to protect ourselves in that way. I mean, I would much rather sleep safer at night knowing that I wasn't at risk of a home invasion, rather than sleep soundly knowing I have a gun under my bed for when the criminal comes.

If for no other reason, I think guns should be limited to cut down on accidental deaths/crimes of passion murders.

qft. i agree completely with you, to the point where i'm not gonna even bother with this thread any more.

[Ouroborus]

That's a great solution. Poor people don't deserve to be able to protect themselves (with guns).



damn right they dont.

rocks and stones ftw! http://www.czolgiem.com/humor/tank-owned.jpg

[Phoenix Wright]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-- Thomas Jefferson

[EvilKing]

All i can picture is this asian version of Napoleon Dynomite walking into a gun shop/walmart/whatever and asking for FIFTY FUCKING CLIPS.

....then some clerk actually selling someone....ANYONE! Let alone some goofy kid (who's been hospitalized for mental problems) FIFTY FUCKING CLIPS!

....what the fuck?!

[Azrael]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-- Thomas Jefferson
Again, this isn't peace - it's just a stand-off. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather live in a society where, rather than plan to defend against the attack to my person, I don't have to worry about being attacked at all. Arming the common man does NOTHING to work towards a society where we don't have to worry about being attacked.

And for all those times when you may think "Man, a gun would have come in handy here", there are enough accidental shootings and crimes of passion to effectively negate that.

[Weeks]

Yet countries with nukes never get invaded.

So obviously they work.

anyway i don't see how this thing is related to gun control, honestly. Britain has a hellacious crime rate and pretty strict gun control laws. It's just the type of crime you want, I think.

[spudlyff8fan]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Nice job completely taking a quote entirely out of context. Anachronism ftmfw.

And yeah, you're kidding yourself if you think gun control laws would stop stuff like the Virginia Tech shootings or when that guy took over the Amish school.Then he would've just killed them some other way.

[Javid]

As Gwynne Dyer put it best recently, the argument shouldn't be "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". It's more like "Guns don't kill Americans, Americans kill Americans".

Face it, nowhere in the world is there such problems with guns than America, and for good reasons also.

[1]

Isn't that the same thing? Americans are people too.

[Panicked]

Isn't that the same thing? Americans are people too.

It's not the same thing. All Americans are people, but not all people are Americans.

[RockBogart]

For me, the whole "we need guns to defend ourselves!" is like our whole nuclear missile problem on a much smaller scale.

America has nukes. Russia has nukes. China has nukes. Some other countries have nukes. We don't want the nukes, cause we know if we used them then all shit would go off and we'd royally fuck over the entire planet. Yet, we can't get rid of the nukes, because the other guys have em and we don't trust them. What we should be doing is, as countries, find a way to get along so that we don't have to be all paranoid about being able to respond in force should the situation arise.

In the same vein, rather than arm yourself for protection, I feel that we should be working to never have to worry about having to protect ourselves in that way. I mean, I would much rather sleep safer at night knowing that I wasn't at risk of a home invasion, rather than sleep soundly knowing I have a gun under my bed for when the criminal comes.

If for no other reason, I think guns should be limited to cut down on accidental deaths/crimes of passion murders.

Only in a Utopia my friend. To bad thing wont work out that way. Humans in general have problems admitting weaknesses especially mental ones. Cant help someone who doesn't wanna be helped.

[Windlord0]

As Gwynne Dyer put it best recently, the argument shouldn't be "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". It's more like "Guns don't kill Americans, Americans kill Americans".

Face it, nowhere in the world is there such problems with guns than America, and for good reasons also.

That's a good point. No african country has any problems with guns at all. I can't think of any event in the history of the nations of central africa that involved gun violence.

Would you feel more comfortable with a similar crime rate but with no guns? What about a worse crime rate, but no guns being used in the crimes? In places that have huge limits on gun ownership there still exists a lot of violent crime and homocide. Maybe you have a point you are making, but I can't see it.

[Phoenix Wright]

Again, this isn't peace - it's just a stand-off. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather live in a society where, rather than plan to defend against the attack to my person, I don't have to worry about being attacked at all. Arming the common man does NOTHING to work towards a society where we don't have to worry about being attacked.

And for all those times when you may think "Man, a gun would have come in handy here", there are enough accidental shootings and crimes of passion to effectively negate that.

Well, We all would like to live in a society like that. Unfortunately we don't. Banning guns will not lead to a society where people won't try to do harm to others. Gun control will not make guns dissapear either. Gun control only disarms the general law abiding citizen. Period.

Criminals don't follow laws therefore they will not follow any gun ban. Where I live, guns are virtually banned and criminals still use them to harm the unarmed law abiding citizens.

[Phoenix Wright]

Nice job completely taking a quote entirely out of context. Anachronism ftmfw.

And yeah, you're kidding yourself if you think gun control laws would stop stuff like the Virginia Tech shootings or when that guy took over the Amish school.Then he would've just killed them some other way.

What are you talking about? that quote pretty much backs up my stance on gun control. There's nothing outdated about it.

[spudlyff8fan]

Again, this isn't peace - it's just a stand-off. Maybe it's just me, but I'd much rather live in a society where, rather than plan to defend against the attack to my person, I don't have to worry about being attacked at all. Arming the common man does NOTHING to work towards a society where we don't have to worry about being attacked.

And for all those times when you may think "Man, a gun would have come in handy here", there are enough accidental shootings and crimes of passion to effectively negate that.

Will Smith once said something that really puts this thread into perspective.

"Welcome to Earth."

[ADarkSilhouette]

Banning guns wont do shit and everyone knows it...well the people with any common sense that is.

[Azrael]

You all keep saying "Well, it would be nice if we did live in a utopia and didn't need guns...but we don't so we do." Well, we're NEVER going to reach that state if everyone just gives up and doesn't bother trying. With your false sense of security behind your gun, you don't strive for anything better.

We will NEVER reach a perfect utopia. There will always be some sort of violence or crime. But just because you can't reach perfection, doesn't mean you stop trying. If that were the case, we'd all have to give up Street Fighter because we'll probably never reach the level of a Daigo, or a Justin Wong.

I live in Japan, where guns just aren't allowed. Do people still have guns anyway? Sure, some do. But there isn't nearly the amount of gun crime and gun-related deaths, even accounting for population differences. Sure, there's crime here, same as anywhere else - but its much more isolated. You can actually walk down dark streets at night and leave your door unlocked, and chances are things will be okay (whereas in America, it's a matter of how much you're screwed). I'm sure Japan isn't the only country where guns aren't present and aren't an issue. ...If the Japanese and others can do it, why the hell can't we?

I just find it pointless to accept worst-case scenario and to never strive for anything better. Stop saying "Well, that would be nice, but..." and make efforts to see it happen. Guns aren't the path to peace, they're a standoff. Just like our nuclear situation. I think Weeks said on the previous page that countries with nukes don't get invaded. That's true, but its for all the wrong reasons. And all it takes is for one major incident to happen, some tempers to flare, and countries to respond in kind and we'd vaporize the Earth. It'd be infinitely better if we could live in peace without that fear. Same with guns. And you can't say "that's not possible!" because there are other countries that are doing just that.

[Windlord0]

Japan's lack of crime could come from many things. In addition to not having as many guns as america, they also don't have the amount of drug traffic, racial diversity, or police restrictions. All of these have been named (sometimes incorrectly) as the reason for the lack of crime in japan. In addition to the great lack of limits put on the police force, criminals are treated much more strictly over there.

An area in both countries that we can look at is the prisons. Prisoners in both countries are unable to have firearms while in prison (of course). Then consider that inmates in america have much higher violent crime rates while in prison than japanese inmates. That would seem like a good argument, but I ran aross the rates for violence in England/Wales inmate deaths and they about as low as the japanese rates. As far as I know the violence rates in england are lower than that of japan, and england supports hunting weapons quite fully I believe.

Making a statement that guns are responsible for the lower crime rates in japan is a bad generalization, and it would be the same as me blaming any of the other differences in our two countries for the differences in crime rate.

[RockBogart]

Well the Japanese weren't even allowed to have a standing military for years among other things.

[Taichi]

there are only three ways into my home.

when I am alone, all three are locked.

so, if i hear a door open, it's someone who lives here.

if I hear glass breaking (the only other way in) I get the gun.

and I don't give a damn who it is, they will die. If you're stupid enough to disregard someone's safety to the point that you will invade their home, you're capable of anything, and deserve extreme prejudice. The very act of breaking into my house tells me you are prepared to die. It is Terrorism, it is a violation of liberty, privacy, and my right to be secure in my person.

I will not injure them to incapacitate them, because there's only one way to make sure that they're incapacitated enough not to harm anybody, and that's when they no longer draw breath.

There are burglars who have successfully SUED homeowners, for injuring themselves while invading their home. I do not want to be sued for 'shooting to incapacitate' I'd rather kill them, and never give them the option.

you cross the threshold of my home illegally, and no pleas for mercy will stay my hand.

[Windlord0]

there are only three ways into my home.

when I am alone, all three are locked.

so, if i hear a door open, it's someone who lives here.

if I hear glass breaking (the only other way in) I get the gun.

and I don't give a damn who it is, they will die. If you're stupid enough to disregard someone's safety to the point that you will invade their home, you're capable of anything, and deserve extreme prejudice. The very act of breaking into my house tells me you are prepared to die. It is Terrorism, it is a violation of liberty, privacy, and my right to be secure in my person.

I will not injure them to incapacitate them, because there's only one way to make sure that they're incapacitated enough not to harm anybody, and that's when they no longer draw breath.

There are burglars who have successfully SUED homeowners, for injuring themselves while invading their home. I do not want to be sued for 'shooting to incapacitate' I'd rather kill them, and never give them the option.

you cross the threshold of my home illegally, and no pleas for mercy will stay my hand.

Amen man.

More people need to take responsibility for their own safety. The only extra concern I have is that since I live in an apartment complex I have a mag with glaser rounds. I don't want to over penetrate and hit some innocent person in another apartment. Responsible gun owners are more common than people want to believe, and we think about things like this. Gun owners never get a positive picture painted of them, because nobody does a story on a normal person who owns a gun to protect their family, but would much rather never have to use it. That's not news material, but that's how we are.

[Higher-Jin]

We all know the war on drugs supposedly unwinnable, and yet here we are still fighting it. I don't know why we can't launch an equally unwinnable "War on Gun Violence". Sure you could go out and find drugs if you know where to look, but the laws and penalties discourage people. I feel the same should be applied to guns.

However, you and I both know that won't happen. There is a very conservative, red neck hick voter base out there that will never, ever allow it.

[RockBogart]

We all know the war on drugs supposedly unwinnable, and yet here we are still fighting it. I don't know why we can't launch an equally unwinnable "War on Gun Violence". Sure you could go out and find drugs if you know where to look, but the laws and penalties discourage people. I feel the same should be applied to guns.

However, you and I both know that won't happen. There is a very conservative, red neck hick voter base out there that will never, ever allow it.

So because some people feel that human life is a disposable commodity, people shouldnt be allowed to own guns? Making a gun permit more expensive isn't gonna stop it. And ammo is already a little on the expensive side. And sociopaths can get through a polygraph and psych evaluations quite easily, since they have no pause when it comes to lying. Project exile has been in affect for quite few years now. For those who don't know, it means if your caught with an illegal gun its an automatic 5 year sentence in the Federal Pen.

[Taichi]

I'm not a conservative, I'm a liberal, a RADICAL Liberal.

but when it comes to protecting my home and my family, I have to be conservative.

I will not entrust the safety of my family into the hands of an intruder.

if they repeal the second amendment, what's to stop them from repealing the first?, or the nineteenth?

[MrBlank]

Yep!....

[ChunLi]

Ironically, I got a gun (glock .45) from my brother today to put in my drawer of the store I own/work out. Some strange guy has been casing the place in the last 4 days... (checking out for cameras.. comes in when we open.. and comes in when we close) so I think he's gonna hit us up soon. All I know is that in today's crazy age .. you need to defend yourself..because the law ain't gonna shield bullets when they come flying at you.

[Satomiblood]

It doesn't matter. There will always be conflict and violence will always win out over peace in terms of problem solving. And I find it funny how we distance ourselves from the rest of nature; we use things like intelligence, emotion, and sophistication to do that. Thing is, human beings don't rationalize as much as they should. The senseless violence you see in the media makes us no better than a pack of rabid dogs. Debating over gun control is useless. If you eliminate guns, we'll find other ways to inflict pain on ourselves. We were meant to destroy each other. It's our inherent nature.

[spudlyff8fan]

Sure, pal.

[Warpticon]

Gun control means using both hands in my land.