The W
Views: 100009813
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.07 1950
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Greatest Story Ever Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1266 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (32 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2338/4700
EXP: 21587164
For next: 249498

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#21 Posted on 21.10.03 0604.19
Reposted on: 21.10.10 0604.36
    Originally posted by A-MOL
    I noticed an armed citizenry didn't stop Columbine, but indeed allowed the kids easier access to weapons. Plus, I would rather that four year olds and the people teaching them were not armed, thanks.

If the teachers were armed, perhaps this could've been avoided. The fact that you would rather see innocent people die rather than have an armed teacher is kind of sad and disturbing.

BTW, remember the law school shooting in West Virginia? Guess how that ended; a law school student went to the car, got his piece, and that ended that. One of 2.5 MILLION defensive gun uses per year...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 20/2704
EXP: 8931016
For next: 57803

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#22 Posted on 21.10.03 0743.44
Reposted on: 21.10.10 0744.14
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      You're right, banning guns wont work. I am more in favor of banning ammunition. Seriously, most criminals do obtain their guns illegally.

    What makes you so certain that criminals obtaining guns illegally won't obtain ammunition illegally? Ammunitation can easily be made with a chemistry set.


Grimis, sure they can obtain ammunition illegally or make their own (you do need more than a chemistry set). I am not in favor of denying hunters or others the legitimate use of their weapons. Here in the wilds of Kansas firearms are used to dispose of feral dogs, coyotes, and other vermin doing things they shouldn't. Not to mention the tasty game we get to eat in season. However, owning a handgun for protection and a feeling of security is perception, not reality.

The gun on your nightstand is more likely to do you or a member of your family in than protect you. As pointed out in another post here, everyone has a gun and violence is rife.

As I said earlier, I support anyone's legal right to bear arms. Just understand two things. You likely aren't safer with them and if you think a handgun makes the governement think twice about invading your home or abridging you rights you are mistaken.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 301/641
EXP: 1104767
For next: 52359

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3703 days
Last activity: 3361 days
#23 Posted on 21.10.03 0833.49
Reposted on: 21.10.10 0834.28
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by A-MOL
      I noticed an armed citizenry didn't stop Columbine, but indeed allowed the kids easier access to weapons. Plus, I would rather that four year olds and the people teaching them were not armed, thanks.

    If the teachers were armed, perhaps this could've been avoided. The fact that you would rather see innocent people die rather than have an armed teacher is kind of sad and disturbing.

    BTW, remember the law school shooting in West Virginia? Guess how that ended; a law school student went to the car, got his piece, and that ended that. One of 2.5 MILLION defensive gun uses per year...


You know, I'm all for right to bear arms and what not, but under no circumstance should we arm educators.

You know, if we just actually worry about educating our childern (instead of just baby-sitting and discplining them constantly) we can get rid of most social issues in a few generations.

But we don't have time for rational solutions! We must have results now! Arm the teachers!

But the fact that you would rather arm teachers than actually solve the problems that cause school shootings is kind of sad and disturbing.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2340/4700
EXP: 21587164
For next: 249498

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#24 Posted on 21.10.03 0845.02
Reposted on: 21.10.10 0845.02
I'm not saying arm somebody or not arm somebody. The only occupation that should be armed without question is law enforcement.(of all levels). But I don't think that the right to carry should be denied to airline pilots, teachers, school administrators, or anybody else. That's a choice. That choice does come with responsibilities. Example: a teacher that would choose to arm themselves has a responsibility to inform their principal and administration that they're packing. But under no circumstances would I advocate arming everybody. That's an individual choice. If people feel comfortable with a .45 in their holster good. If they aren't comfortable, that's fine too because it's a choice not to carry, not a law forbidding carrying. Even unarmed citizens will share the benefits.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 21/2704
EXP: 8931016
For next: 57803

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#25 Posted on 21.10.03 0947.18
Reposted on: 21.10.10 0949.37
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I'm not saying arm somebody or not arm somebody. The only occupation that should be armed without question is law enforcement.(of all levels). But I don't think that the right to carry should be denied to airline pilots, teachers, school administrators, or anybody else. That's a choice. That choice does come with responsibilities. Example: a teacher that would choose to arm themselves has a responsibility to inform their principal and administration that they're packing. But under no circumstances would I advocate arming everybody. That's an individual choice. If people feel comfortable with a .45 in their holster good. If they aren't comfortable, that's fine too because it's a choice not to carry, not a law forbidding carrying. Even unarmed citizens will share the benefits.


They may feel comfortable with a ,45 in their holster but many of us don't. I am not sure what benefits we who are unarmed gain. I have no desire to be in the middle of a gunfight with a righteous citizen defending himself.

The "responsibilty" goes much further than notifying your superiors you're packing. You should have to undergo a background check, psychological evaluation, intensive training in the proper use and care of your weapon, and if your going for concealed carry you need a damn good reason. If teachers feel the need to carry I would rather have an armed cop on hand.

Finally, people think they now how they will react and that they will be able to use a firearm to shoot someone else. Having two friends who were policeman and ended up shooting ( and in one case killing) perps in self defense, I am not sure people know the effect on their psyche. The officer who had no choice but to kill the perp was f***ed up for several years and still has problems. And he was trained for this (As if anyone can be trained to accept taking a life no matter what the circumstances).
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2470/5403
EXP: 27163160
For next: 689580

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on 21.10.03 0959.55
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1000.29
To be honest if we're going to move to get as many people armed as possible, I wonder if we might not be better off simply demanding everyone carry a piece on their person at all times. Right now my fears don't come from whether or not I am allowed to carry a piece, it's the fact that I don't know who else might be carrying one. Because if someone wants to potshot you, there can be a Desert Eagle .50 on each of your hips and it won't help you if you don't know it's coming. But if we could work with the knowledge that every person you see has a gun, then perhaps it might not be so bad.

Or we could accept the notion that individually armed populaces in a first world 21st century democracy is archaic and destructive and work to disarm everyone. Unless you're waiting to have that war against the government that people seem to think is coming when they bring out the notion of a well-armed populace being a free populace (not that this has ever really worked anywhere I can think of, at least not in the last century or so).

Also I have a question. At what point are we allowed to turn all these guns on the government and not have it be treason, the sort of thing that most second amendment people would consider a capital offense?
Jobberman
Kishke
Level: 44

Posts: 230/426
EXP: 601406
For next: 9883

Since: 2.1.02
From: West Palm Beach, FL

Since last post: 83 days
Last activity: 44 days
#27 Posted on 21.10.03 1140.29
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1141.50
Just adding some more info to digest...

http://www.seebo.net/Kennesaw.html
Nate The Snake
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 770/1136
EXP: 2616824
For next: 111990

Since: 9.1.02
From: Wichita, Ks

Since last post: 3750 days
Last activity: 3219 days
AIM:  
#28 Posted on 21.10.03 1229.34
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1229.37
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I'm not saying arm somebody or not arm somebody. The only occupation that should be armed without question is law enforcement.(of all levels). But I don't think that the right to carry should be denied to airline pilots, teachers, school administrators, or anybody else. That's a choice. That choice does come with responsibilities. Example: a teacher that would choose to arm themselves has a responsibility to inform their principal and administration that they're packing. But under no circumstances would I advocate arming everybody. That's an individual choice. If people feel comfortable with a .45 in their holster good. If they aren't comfortable, that's fine too because it's a choice not to carry, not a law forbidding carrying. Even unarmed citizens will share the benefits.


You want teachers to be carrying ON THE JOB. The job that requires them to work with ROOMS FULL OF CHILDREN. Without notifying the parents of those children.

Wow.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 1245/3059
EXP: 11572343
For next: 289822

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1988 days
Last activity: 1922 days
#29 Posted on 21.10.03 1418.58
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1419.20
"That statistics also indicate that outside of Dunblane gun crime was rare before the 1996 ban. And let's face it, an unarmed citizenry means that a Dunblane(or worse) could sprout up at any time."

You are insane.

Dunblane was commited by a fucked-up sociopath who, through his local gun club, had obtained over fifteen arms perfectly legally. He was part of the armed citizenry you are advocating. He was a man who, due to the ease in obtaining them in his small Scottish village, was able to feed his violent obsession via the collecting of firearms. What would have happened today? Would this unhinged individual carefully planned to buy as many illegal handguns as possible by journeying to the nearest population centre and risking arrest at every turn? Or would he have simply stocked up on swords and knifes and whatever other nasty weapons he could've got his hands and waded into that school hall? Who knows. But at least now such people don't have the opportunity to readily purchase firearms-a much deadlier, harder-to-fight weapon than any amount of blades.

Further-and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong-but our ban on guns extends to those only of the "hand" variety. These statistics do not differentiate between crimes commited with rifles, shotguns, etc. Hell, my grandfather legally owns a set of hunting rifles that he uses every other weekend. How many of these new gun crimes are being committed with similar weapons?

FURTHER, are you seriously asking us to believe that every criminal who uses a handgun in today's America would go to the effort of getting themselves one if the belt was tightened on who was allowed them? Serious, full-time crims? Sure, I can see that. But every nickel-and-dime asshole who sticks up a convenience store, every piece-of-shit punk who pulls heat on somebody out in the city? No f'ing way. You ever see that Simpsons episode with the bird-eating lizards, where the city introduces mongeese, then snakes, then gorillas to combat each stage of the problem? Your logic is similar to that. "We'll make these weapons readily available to wrongdoers-but also to fine upstanding citizens! That way EVRYBODY has an equal chance of getting shot!"
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2346/4700
EXP: 21587164
For next: 249498

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#30 Posted on 21.10.03 1508.44
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1509.23
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Who knows. But at least now such people don't have the opportunity to readily purchase firearms-a much deadlier, harder-to-fight weapon than any amount of blades.
Nor do people have the opprtunity to buy firearms a much deadlier, harder-to-fight weapon, to defend themselves as opposed to putting themselves at the mercy of a criminal.

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    Further-and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong-but our ban on guns extends to those only of the "hand" variety. These statistics do not differentiate between crimes commited with rifles, shotguns, etc.

Don't you remember "assault rifles", vritually legally defined as guns that look bad. Seriously, the assault rifle ban basically bans weapons that look like assault weapons.

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    FURTHER, are you seriously asking us to believe that every criminal who uses a handgun in today's America would go to the effort of getting themselves one if the belt was tightened on who was allowed them?
No, because they wouldn't need a gun because the rest of the populace was disarmed. Why would a criminal need a gun if he can rob you with a switchblade?

    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    You ever see that Simpsons episode with the bird-eating lizards, where the city introduces mongeese, then snakes, then gorillas to combat each stage of the problem? Your logic is similar to that. "We'll make these weapons readily available to wrongdoers-but also to fine upstanding citizens! That way EVRYBODY has an equal chance of getting shot!"

No, that way everybody has an equal chance to defend themselves.

It always amazes me that gun-grabbers wants to force people to throw themselves to the mercy of criminals. That's dealing with problems retroactively rather than proactively. I'd be willing to bet that there are thousands dead because of the inavailability of concealed carry laws and firearms for people to defend themselves(like women who are victims of domestic violence that need a waiting period. Ever wonder how many of those women never picked up their guns?). And their blood is on the hands of the liberal gun grabbers in political office(many of whom are protected by armed bodyguards)
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 302/641
EXP: 1104767
For next: 52359

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3703 days
Last activity: 3361 days
#31 Posted on 21.10.03 1515.25
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1517.11



Pretty small town. 19,000 in 1998.

Pretty high average income, over $44,000.00 in 1989.

and according to This it seems that little Kennesaw is a fairly well to do community.

Why this place even had a crime rate to begin with is beyond me.

I'd like to see if this will work in a more "realistic" community.

By realistic I mean, 2 Million + population, with a big chunk in the poverty level.

That way we can see if this actually works in an average city.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2472/5403
EXP: 27163160
For next: 689580

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on 21.10.03 1552.35
Reposted on: 21.10.10 1554.13
Grimis, if in your worldview anyone who is unarmed is at the "mercy" of a criminal, why do we even pay for police forces or court systems or prisons? Why not simply train every citizen in the art of self-defense with a weapon, give every citizen a working good-condition registered firearm, employ a small force of people designed to watch out for those physically/mentally incapable of using a firearm, and let the natural force of equilibrium lead to the peaceful world which would undoubtedly ensue. Because having more vigilantes amidst a still largely un-carrying populace gives me no comfort, it just means the odds are better to me that every bar fight, every road rage argument, every complaint at the grocery store, could easily spiral into a hail of bullets, much moreso than it does even now. I see firearms and armed populace as a very all-or-nothing sort of issue. As long as anyone is armed, the potential for disaster exists unless everyone is armed. Letting a few more people who are pulling at the reins desperate to be allowed to carry a piece out in public do so legally doesn't exactly make me feel secure. And I say this as someone who rarely ever leaves his house without some form of personal protection, and someone who lives in a heavily armed home. But no, the thought that there might be 10 people on my el train at night with a gun doesn't make me feel good. It just increases by a factor of 10 the chance of someone getting shot in my train car.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: With friends like these....
Next thread: Limbaugh's Rehab Center
Previous thread: Ghettopoly
(1266 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Greatest Story EverRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.276 seconds.