Deja Vu:
http://www.msn.co.uk/news/breakingnews02/
Mal
Shootings
Moderator: RLG MGMT Team
Mav,
So do we then outlaw knives? 'Cause without guns the criminals will resort to knives...clubs, golf clubs, baseball bats, tire irons, fireplace pokers, yada, yada...
Surely all of those items are dangerous in the hands of a anyone intending to do harm, so we should surely outlaw them just like guns???
Oh, and do not forget bows and crossbows... And what about those high-powered air rifles? Certainly those could put an eye out at least, no? And some are accurate and powerful enough to penetrate a particular spot, such as throat or eye - probably a mortal would if it does not kill outright....
Don't forget fertilizer...that can be VERY dangerous - certainly we need to outlaw that?
Well, I suppose it is better to die all of those ways than being shot though, eh?
It is the person behind the device, whatever it is, not the device itself that causes harm. Talk about logic...
So do we then outlaw knives? 'Cause without guns the criminals will resort to knives...clubs, golf clubs, baseball bats, tire irons, fireplace pokers, yada, yada...
Surely all of those items are dangerous in the hands of a anyone intending to do harm, so we should surely outlaw them just like guns???
Oh, and do not forget bows and crossbows... And what about those high-powered air rifles? Certainly those could put an eye out at least, no? And some are accurate and powerful enough to penetrate a particular spot, such as throat or eye - probably a mortal would if it does not kill outright....
Don't forget fertilizer...that can be VERY dangerous - certainly we need to outlaw that?
Well, I suppose it is better to die all of those ways than being shot though, eh?
It is the person behind the device, whatever it is, not the device itself that causes harm. Talk about logic...
Helmut
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
Doc/Steel. As far as bomb making equipment goes, lets take the scenario of the link Malin posted above. Say it turns out to be the case that the guy involved was a pupil who had held a grudge. As things stand at the moment, he has gone and got a gun and blown 3 people away before turning the gun on himself.
If no guns, we will take your bomb scenario. I would hazard a guess that by the time he has even begun to find out what to use, how to get it, where to find the recipe, obtaining the gear, making it up, testing it, etc, etc, he has calmed down and realised the stupidity of his actions. That little escapade would give him at least a few days to sleep on his plan.
Or lets take the baseball bat scenario. He goes up to the school brandishing a baseball bat. Assuming he gets as far as the classroom, he cracks one of the teacher's with it and before he can get his upswing going again, there is 30 pupils on him kicking his head in.
To say it has only to do with the person and nothing to do with the weapon is a load of bull. Why not let us all walk about with cans of cyanide spray then? Quick and effective, i promise only to use it if im attacked!! What would you say? Also, i hardly think the Washington sniper would have got quite so many victims had he been brandishing a knife.
So yeah, there is plenty logic in what Mav says.
Glas
Edited to add one final point: I read your 2nd Amendment to mean that a 'well regulated militia' of people bearing arms is necessary for the security of the State, yes? Does this not therefore mean that anyone who bears arms and does so outwith a well-regulated militia is breaking the Constitution?
If no guns, we will take your bomb scenario. I would hazard a guess that by the time he has even begun to find out what to use, how to get it, where to find the recipe, obtaining the gear, making it up, testing it, etc, etc, he has calmed down and realised the stupidity of his actions. That little escapade would give him at least a few days to sleep on his plan.
Or lets take the baseball bat scenario. He goes up to the school brandishing a baseball bat. Assuming he gets as far as the classroom, he cracks one of the teacher's with it and before he can get his upswing going again, there is 30 pupils on him kicking his head in.
To say it has only to do with the person and nothing to do with the weapon is a load of bull. Why not let us all walk about with cans of cyanide spray then? Quick and effective, i promise only to use it if im attacked!! What would you say? Also, i hardly think the Washington sniper would have got quite so many victims had he been brandishing a knife.
So yeah, there is plenty logic in what Mav says.
Glas
Edited to add one final point: I read your 2nd Amendment to mean that a 'well regulated militia' of people bearing arms is necessary for the security of the State, yes? Does this not therefore mean that anyone who bears arms and does so outwith a well-regulated militia is breaking the Constitution?
NEVER get in to an argument with a stupid person......they will just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
Washington sniper is not good example to use if you wish to use the "cooling off period" stance against guns... The guy(s) had plenty of time to cool off methinks...(as Doc stated).
Also, as Doc stated, you actually have to see the person you are going to shoot (almost all of the time - there are very rare exceptions). There are less personal ways to kill masses of people and never see it, which is a lot easier for most folks...
And, just think of those bows and crossbows... No shell casings to match things with a particular weapon, no slugs to do the same, no residue from firing them, you can't tell how recently they've been fired.... We really need to outlaw those things, and QUICK!
Also, as Doc stated, you actually have to see the person you are going to shoot (almost all of the time - there are very rare exceptions). There are less personal ways to kill masses of people and never see it, which is a lot easier for most folks...
And, just think of those bows and crossbows... No shell casings to match things with a particular weapon, no slugs to do the same, no residue from firing them, you can't tell how recently they've been fired.... We really need to outlaw those things, and QUICK!
Helmut
-
BlackHawk*K
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: 12 May 2001, 17:00
- Location: Oklahoma
well i guess im kinda an outsider looking in on this debate since i mentioned before that i dont know alot about the statics behind the arguments. however there are two points i do see on both sides that make good sense and i feel that both sides could agree apon in some degree or manner. i see and recognize the point that a person, in a instant of rage could use a gun to kill someone else then regret it terribly afterwards... there are probably a small portion of gun deaths do to this reason alone. im sure this person. who probably followed all laws to own their firearm and in one instant of rage, specificly if it was unexpected such as maybe a spouse cheating etc. could use a the firearm on their spouse or partner at the time of this rage. and then once the rage subsides live with what they did or die with it depending on how the law condemed them. so if guns were banned there is a percentage of this occurance that probably would be stoped and lives saved. but now keep in mind though, that there are ppl who come to this state of mind one way or another who use other means. such as the soccer parents getting in browls and beating others to death... or ppl who for some reason drive their SUV into a crowd of ppl. or even road rage where ppl use all sorts of means, guns, their own cars etc. to try to kill someone out of rage on the road...
no recognizing and even agreeing to a degree on how a ban of guns could help this problem of rage and where Glas says that a bit of time thinking about it WOULD help the situation, i have to wounder, if we, the US agreed with this and decided to ban firearms for this reason, what would be next over the years? would our vehicles then be banned due to autodeaths rather intentional or not? would all knives be banned next? how long would it be till we would be killing each other with spoons becuse thats all that we are allowed to own?
yes, i may be paranoid, but then maybe not. but over restrictions seems to me to be the start of a downward trend. and maybe it may take decades, even centeries to occure but how long would it take before we had no rights? the taken of rights may of seem small and right at the time, even minor, but how many marbles dropped into a 50 gallon barrel would it take before the barrel is full? it dosnt matter hte amount of time. or how small the marble realy looks at the time, but the truth is it DOES take space out of the barrel. and if/when the barrel was full of marbles and we had no rights at all, what could we do to fight back with spoons?
i think there is some scence in that somewhere LOL read it a few times....
to be honest folks i know this subject is hard and feelings run hot discussing it... i know understanding on both sides of the subject may be hard, becuse after all we do live in seperate worlds even though we live on one earth... distance DOES matter on how ppl live, the customs they have even the way they talk... and what may work in one area may not work in another. it dosnt mean one is bad and the other good realy. it just means that we are different.
now i may be very wrong with this statement and i dont pretend to speak for my nation or its ppl. but i will go for it anyhow. i apologize if anyone feels i put words in their mouth before the fact. i feel that some Americans in general feel that even with the gun crimes. the sacrifice of short term security is worth the long term security that we will still have a right and a voice in our country.i know some would disagree, but in general this is the feeling i get by those about me for the most part... i recognize the deaths of those who are slain and the familes destroyed by firearms and i realy do hurt inside when i think about those ppl and in my own way i even morn for them. i also wounder though, how much worse would it be if by slowly given up our rights over time, would the civil war be to get em back?
no recognizing and even agreeing to a degree on how a ban of guns could help this problem of rage and where Glas says that a bit of time thinking about it WOULD help the situation, i have to wounder, if we, the US agreed with this and decided to ban firearms for this reason, what would be next over the years? would our vehicles then be banned due to autodeaths rather intentional or not? would all knives be banned next? how long would it be till we would be killing each other with spoons becuse thats all that we are allowed to own?
yes, i may be paranoid, but then maybe not. but over restrictions seems to me to be the start of a downward trend. and maybe it may take decades, even centeries to occure but how long would it take before we had no rights? the taken of rights may of seem small and right at the time, even minor, but how many marbles dropped into a 50 gallon barrel would it take before the barrel is full? it dosnt matter hte amount of time. or how small the marble realy looks at the time, but the truth is it DOES take space out of the barrel. and if/when the barrel was full of marbles and we had no rights at all, what could we do to fight back with spoons?
i think there is some scence in that somewhere LOL read it a few times....
to be honest folks i know this subject is hard and feelings run hot discussing it... i know understanding on both sides of the subject may be hard, becuse after all we do live in seperate worlds even though we live on one earth... distance DOES matter on how ppl live, the customs they have even the way they talk... and what may work in one area may not work in another. it dosnt mean one is bad and the other good realy. it just means that we are different.
now i may be very wrong with this statement and i dont pretend to speak for my nation or its ppl. but i will go for it anyhow. i apologize if anyone feels i put words in their mouth before the fact. i feel that some Americans in general feel that even with the gun crimes. the sacrifice of short term security is worth the long term security that we will still have a right and a voice in our country.i know some would disagree, but in general this is the feeling i get by those about me for the most part... i recognize the deaths of those who are slain and the familes destroyed by firearms and i realy do hurt inside when i think about those ppl and in my own way i even morn for them. i also wounder though, how much worse would it be if by slowly given up our rights over time, would the civil war be to get em back?
-
BlackHawk*K
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: 12 May 2001, 17:00
- Location: Oklahoma
yea mav, just like cars.
when someone Tbones a bus and kills 6 kids...
Just like knives
when somone is stabed
just like electricity
when you actualy seen someone electricuted and thrown 20 feet. ( he lived though, but with nice nast scares that disfigured his face and left arm and torso)
but then there are those who are killed by it.
then we got alcohol. how many died from poisoning or dumb things done under its influance? i bet far more then done by firearms.
well then you know the sun cuases skin cancers too...
my tools of trade are dangeous of hell, and i know of ppl localy who have fallen building houes and stuff and died. shall we live in the open in the rain or snow becuse of it?
the fact is there are no totaly safe places and there never has been nor will there be. its a simple fact, and one i dont believe anyone with any real logic can dispute.
take everything away that someoen has been killed by either by perpose or accident and what do you have left? i would be foolish to call it life at all. and for your info Mav, i am in the situation where a family member was killed by a firearm and my own father shot by one. the thing i wounder more then anything though, is what is more logical or foolish? to blame an object, or the person behind it? what is the true evil? can a gun move itself? can it aim itself? can it pull its own trigger? no, its the person behind it. as i said, i have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone effected by firearm injury but i have the same for anyone injured or killed by anything else.
i ask this? what should we take away from out lives to be totatly safe? and who should decide this for us? and tell me please, what will stop an evil person who has a purpose?
when someone Tbones a bus and kills 6 kids...
Just like knives
when somone is stabed
just like electricity
when you actualy seen someone electricuted and thrown 20 feet. ( he lived though, but with nice nast scares that disfigured his face and left arm and torso)
but then there are those who are killed by it.
then we got alcohol. how many died from poisoning or dumb things done under its influance? i bet far more then done by firearms.
well then you know the sun cuases skin cancers too...
my tools of trade are dangeous of hell, and i know of ppl localy who have fallen building houes and stuff and died. shall we live in the open in the rain or snow becuse of it?
the fact is there are no totaly safe places and there never has been nor will there be. its a simple fact, and one i dont believe anyone with any real logic can dispute.
take everything away that someoen has been killed by either by perpose or accident and what do you have left? i would be foolish to call it life at all. and for your info Mav, i am in the situation where a family member was killed by a firearm and my own father shot by one. the thing i wounder more then anything though, is what is more logical or foolish? to blame an object, or the person behind it? what is the true evil? can a gun move itself? can it aim itself? can it pull its own trigger? no, its the person behind it. as i said, i have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone effected by firearm injury but i have the same for anyone injured or killed by anything else.
i ask this? what should we take away from out lives to be totatly safe? and who should decide this for us? and tell me please, what will stop an evil person who has a purpose?
another point...look into history and see what governments restricted firearms ownership (and/or other weapons) and then commenced tighter and tighter restrictions upon the population that ended up with some type of genocide...
guns are not bad, the people that use them in an irresponsible manner are...
hmmmm.....let's see...
i wonder how many deaths are caused by illegal gun owners vs legal gun owners? anyone have stats on that?
guns are not bad, the people that use them in an irresponsible manner are...
hmmmm.....let's see...
i wonder how many deaths are caused by illegal gun owners vs legal gun owners? anyone have stats on that?
Helmut
-
ELH~Lancer
- Posts: 406
- Joined: 11 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: 151 Recon, Black Adder Lines, England
- Contact:
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
Lancer, you failed to even consider the most important part of what i said. How many law abiding citizens were killed by guns in that period? I couldnt give two shits if gangsters want to go about blowing each other away, but i know for a fact that the shooting of an individual who was simply going about his business is so rare in this country, it is still headline news. And also consider how may of those were killed with legal guns. 1, maybe 2 in the whole year?
Steel, how you equate loss of gun ownership to genocide is kind of beyond me. Im struggling to make the comparison. Fact of the matter is, after Dunblane the Govt put tighter restrictions on guns and, with barely a fight, the legal gun owners gave up their arms (by and large). Since then there has been no further restrictions on our freedom and, in fact, in every other way imho, our quality of life has increased since then. I am NOT saying that changing those laws changed all our lives for the good, that is simply a coincidence of timing, however the fact of the matter is that since the changes, we have not had another Dunblane, or another Hungerford for that matter.
As to the arguments about cars, knives, etc. Cars were designed to take you from A to B, knives were designed as cutting implements for meat etc. Baseball bats were designed for playing sport. Guns, on the other hand, were designed to kill or maim. In that context, i say again Mav's arguments are VERY relevant.
Also Doc, exactly what well-organised Militia are you part of? I would take a 'well-organised militia' to mean a collection of people who have a clear set of procedures set out in the event of a crisis, they would have a designated leader and also a command structure. Does every American who owns a gun belong to an organisation such as this? I think not!! I also think that Americans have chosen to digest only one small sentence of their own 2nd Amendment 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' and have disregarded the actual most important part of that Amendment.....that it should only be as part of a well-organised militia, and also only for the security of the State.
Steel, about the crossbow thing. You would have something better than a casing, shell or residue left behind. You would have the goddamn bolt itself!!! Given that there is alot less of them about and no doubt each manufacturer's is individual in some way, i dont think it would be difficult to put some kind of serial number, or ultraviolet sensitive markings on each bolt to make it traceable. Making sarcastic comments only negates your argument.
Finally, a point made earlier which no one even bothered to address (i think it may have been Malin who made it). No one is denying your right to a shotgun for sport, a hunting gun for hunting (i dont agree with hunting but thats another matter), or even a handgun to protect you and your family. So why then, is there a need for things like semi-automatic rifles and the many other weapons on sale in American hardware stores that fall outwith that which is absolutely necessary? Can you give any other reason apart from it being your 'right' to justify the sale of such weapons? (Bear in mind please tho, this is simply a discussion and of course you dont have to 'justify' anything for anyone).
Glas
Steel, how you equate loss of gun ownership to genocide is kind of beyond me. Im struggling to make the comparison. Fact of the matter is, after Dunblane the Govt put tighter restrictions on guns and, with barely a fight, the legal gun owners gave up their arms (by and large). Since then there has been no further restrictions on our freedom and, in fact, in every other way imho, our quality of life has increased since then. I am NOT saying that changing those laws changed all our lives for the good, that is simply a coincidence of timing, however the fact of the matter is that since the changes, we have not had another Dunblane, or another Hungerford for that matter.
As to the arguments about cars, knives, etc. Cars were designed to take you from A to B, knives were designed as cutting implements for meat etc. Baseball bats were designed for playing sport. Guns, on the other hand, were designed to kill or maim. In that context, i say again Mav's arguments are VERY relevant.
Also Doc, exactly what well-organised Militia are you part of? I would take a 'well-organised militia' to mean a collection of people who have a clear set of procedures set out in the event of a crisis, they would have a designated leader and also a command structure. Does every American who owns a gun belong to an organisation such as this? I think not!! I also think that Americans have chosen to digest only one small sentence of their own 2nd Amendment 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed' and have disregarded the actual most important part of that Amendment.....that it should only be as part of a well-organised militia, and also only for the security of the State.
Steel, about the crossbow thing. You would have something better than a casing, shell or residue left behind. You would have the goddamn bolt itself!!! Given that there is alot less of them about and no doubt each manufacturer's is individual in some way, i dont think it would be difficult to put some kind of serial number, or ultraviolet sensitive markings on each bolt to make it traceable. Making sarcastic comments only negates your argument.
Finally, a point made earlier which no one even bothered to address (i think it may have been Malin who made it). No one is denying your right to a shotgun for sport, a hunting gun for hunting (i dont agree with hunting but thats another matter), or even a handgun to protect you and your family. So why then, is there a need for things like semi-automatic rifles and the many other weapons on sale in American hardware stores that fall outwith that which is absolutely necessary? Can you give any other reason apart from it being your 'right' to justify the sale of such weapons? (Bear in mind please tho, this is simply a discussion and of course you dont have to 'justify' anything for anyone).
Glas
Last edited by GlasgowCelts on 29 Oct 2002, 02:07, edited 2 times in total.
NEVER get in to an argument with a stupid person......they will just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
Oh and Steel, you took my comments about a 'cooling off' period completely out of context. I mentioned that in relation to the story Malin posted, where it was a heat of the moment thing. A serial killer, however, is completely different. I noticed tho that you never made any comment about my argument that he would never have had so many victims if he had used a knife.
Glas
Glas
-
Justicebringer
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 07 Aug 2003, 11:19
- Location: Dallas, Texas
Hmmmm to post or not to post? That is the question. I have been deliberatly staying out of this but I think Ill throw in my 2 cents.
I do believe in ballistic fingerprints, I believe it a viable option so long as it is used correctly. I see a point in waiting periods even though an insta-check system is extremely realistic. Most people dont go im gonna kill someone then go to Wal-mart and buy a gun and kill someone. It is rare and the media jumps on it. I also do not see a point in owning a heavy machine gun (i.e M249, M60) but I do see were an AR-15 is a good weapon to plink with.
Now no one has touched on the fact that our beloved sniper used a Bushmaster AR-15 for the killings though the anti-gunners will eventually. Just to state a fact that scenario could have just as easily been played out with a bolt action 223 bought a K-mart.
Glas I see your knife point but I also know that desperate/crazy individuals are very resourceful and odds are he would have just blown something up.
I will say that unrestricted gun ownership is a thing of the past. I do not believe in retroactive laws or mandatory turn ins but I am a realist and realize that certain things will stay such as background checks and what not.
Folks as a cop I am all for concealed carry permits for individuals so long as the requirements are strict and the background check thorough. I can deal with the law abiding citizens being armed, because taking reasonable guns away from them willl never stop the jack asses from getting them.
Remember this 90% of guns used in crime in Los Angeles county are not legally purchased.
Ok hope all this makes sense it is 0200 here and I am off to bed.
Later
Justice out.
I do believe in ballistic fingerprints, I believe it a viable option so long as it is used correctly. I see a point in waiting periods even though an insta-check system is extremely realistic. Most people dont go im gonna kill someone then go to Wal-mart and buy a gun and kill someone. It is rare and the media jumps on it. I also do not see a point in owning a heavy machine gun (i.e M249, M60) but I do see were an AR-15 is a good weapon to plink with.
Now no one has touched on the fact that our beloved sniper used a Bushmaster AR-15 for the killings though the anti-gunners will eventually. Just to state a fact that scenario could have just as easily been played out with a bolt action 223 bought a K-mart.
Glas I see your knife point but I also know that desperate/crazy individuals are very resourceful and odds are he would have just blown something up.
I will say that unrestricted gun ownership is a thing of the past. I do not believe in retroactive laws or mandatory turn ins but I am a realist and realize that certain things will stay such as background checks and what not.
Folks as a cop I am all for concealed carry permits for individuals so long as the requirements are strict and the background check thorough. I can deal with the law abiding citizens being armed, because taking reasonable guns away from them willl never stop the jack asses from getting them.
Remember this 90% of guns used in crime in Los Angeles county are not legally purchased.
Ok hope all this makes sense it is 0200 here and I am off to bed.
Later
Justice out.
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
Im sorry but i just cant agree with the argument about other items being used to kill or maim people. These are items that were designed for other uses but which man, evil bastard that he is, uses them to inflict harm on others. Guns, on the other hand, are one of the few items that was invented with the sole aim of harming someone or something. (I accept there are other uses now for guns, like sport, but they were invented as a weapon to cause harm)
As i said before, why cant it be okay then for me to carry something like sarin, cyanide, anthrax etc in liquid form? Like a gun, it can be used to fend off attackers, it is not particularly indiscriminate if used correctly and i will gladly put my name down on a bit of paper to register and can honestly say that i am of sound mind.
Also, is there any chance anyone can please, please, please answer my question about your 2nd Amendment? The first time i had read the 2nd Amendment is when i read it earlier in this post, otherwise i would have brought up the subject before. To me, it states in as plain English as was being used 200 years ago, that man has only got the right to bear arms as part of a larger community organisation. We all know that, strictly speaking, that is not the case in the USA therefore the very same Constitution that you love to quote to defend your right to own guns, is the very same Constitution that each and every one of you breaks every time you own a gun outside of one of these 'militias'.
Glas
Edited to add: About the swords thing BB, i hadnt heard that story before and agree with you it is extremely tragic. Also i agree that it is instances such as that which does put your argument in to some perspective. However, like guns i see no reason for swords in today's society. Ordinary knives are essential today for food prep etc, but i see no reason whatsoever for someone to own something like a sword. Apart from sport (Fencing) this is something else i would outlaw. As i would any implement that has no use other than to cause harm to others. It is easy to carry out a ban on guns and swords but still have them available for sport, hunting, etc.
A simple question for everyone. Do you agree that, if everyone (criminals included) agreed to give up their guns, there would be no use for them whatsoever and should under those circumstances be outlawed? Or would you still hold up your (flawed) 2nd Amendment and demand the right to have something you have no need for?
As i said before, why cant it be okay then for me to carry something like sarin, cyanide, anthrax etc in liquid form? Like a gun, it can be used to fend off attackers, it is not particularly indiscriminate if used correctly and i will gladly put my name down on a bit of paper to register and can honestly say that i am of sound mind.
Also, is there any chance anyone can please, please, please answer my question about your 2nd Amendment? The first time i had read the 2nd Amendment is when i read it earlier in this post, otherwise i would have brought up the subject before. To me, it states in as plain English as was being used 200 years ago, that man has only got the right to bear arms as part of a larger community organisation. We all know that, strictly speaking, that is not the case in the USA therefore the very same Constitution that you love to quote to defend your right to own guns, is the very same Constitution that each and every one of you breaks every time you own a gun outside of one of these 'militias'.
Glas
Edited to add: About the swords thing BB, i hadnt heard that story before and agree with you it is extremely tragic. Also i agree that it is instances such as that which does put your argument in to some perspective. However, like guns i see no reason for swords in today's society. Ordinary knives are essential today for food prep etc, but i see no reason whatsoever for someone to own something like a sword. Apart from sport (Fencing) this is something else i would outlaw. As i would any implement that has no use other than to cause harm to others. It is easy to carry out a ban on guns and swords but still have them available for sport, hunting, etc.
A simple question for everyone. Do you agree that, if everyone (criminals included) agreed to give up their guns, there would be no use for them whatsoever and should under those circumstances be outlawed? Or would you still hold up your (flawed) 2nd Amendment and demand the right to have something you have no need for?
Last edited by GlasgowCelts on 29 Oct 2002, 07:08, edited 1 time in total.
NEVER get in to an argument with a stupid person......they will just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
Not a good example if you look at the reasoning behind this law. Whilst you may not agree to it, (1 child per family) when looking at the overall picture and it's either 1 child per family or mass starvation then it's a more than reasonable solution. (I also understand they give financial benefits to couples who don't have children).Or if the U.S. starts acting like China and saying we as human beings living in a free republic cant have more than 1 child we need to overthrow the current regime to be able to keep our own freedoms and rights.
The difficulty on most rules and restrictions is looking beyond the surface of the rule and seeing the reasoning behind it, I would presume that the USA has the same systems as the UK in passing new laws, as in bloody difficult, this is the most important area to consider before deciding whether or not you should throw out a goverment for passing a law you consider illegal.
The hardest thing for a goverment is to pass a law that dosn't have the support of the people but must be passed in order to resolve a problem that can directly effect the lives of the populance. There may be a point in the future where it will be neccessary for every country on the globe to have population control laws or even fertility laws restricting who can have children. The sad thing is that this type of law would only get passed when things are at the stage of widespread overcrowding, starvation and breakdown of basic infrastructure not before when it could have saved the lives of thousands.
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
You all have reasonable points, I would like to add this: In seventh grade I was fighting with this one kid all year and threatened to coem after him with a gun (I said it as a threat to scare him off). Someone ratted and I was sent to Opportunity school for the rest of the quarter.
Well I did learn a lesson, but in actuality after I had thought it through I would not have gone through with it. I have changed since then and consider attacking an unarmed foe who has not harmed me physically, to be dishonorable.
And Justice what you said about law abiding citizens carrying guns has a point, but does some one who commits a misdemeamor EX: Shoplifting, not have the right to defend themselves? What about a former junkie who manages to set His/herself straight?
The gun is an invention that has been praised and denounced, served hero and villian... To better understand the gun is to better understand history... I took that from the History channel's "Tales of the gun"
What I am trying to say is a weapon is merely a tool in the killer's mind.
The U.S. has a "Zero-Tolerance" Policy towards weapons in school. Has any one heard of the kindergartener who was expelled for bringing a FINGERNAIL CLIPPER to school? Once in sixth grade I went camping with my scout troop over the weekend and forgot to remove my knife from my pocket on Monday, when I realized I had it I was terrified. Fortunately i didn't get caught.
I apologize if this seems off topic, but to me it seems relevant. Also think of this: A boy helps his grandmother move over the weekend and a butter knife gets left in his car. Some one sees the knife and notifies the school athorities... This kid is an all A honor roll student who has just lost
everything, because he is now permanently expelled... Now consider the same scenario except make the boy an active gang member... He too has no intention of harming any one that day, but these two boys aren't interested in hurting anyone at that point they will both be punished for something that should not even be a crime.
Well this is my opinion: A gun with the firing pin removed or deactivated somehow is just an odd shaped club, If one is into martial arts then his/her hands, feet, well they are weapons...I was a green belt in TAE-KWON-DO.
I can't write any more I need to go to school...
If any one feels offended by this feel free to e-mail me.
Well I did learn a lesson, but in actuality after I had thought it through I would not have gone through with it. I have changed since then and consider attacking an unarmed foe who has not harmed me physically, to be dishonorable.
And Justice what you said about law abiding citizens carrying guns has a point, but does some one who commits a misdemeamor EX: Shoplifting, not have the right to defend themselves? What about a former junkie who manages to set His/herself straight?
The gun is an invention that has been praised and denounced, served hero and villian... To better understand the gun is to better understand history... I took that from the History channel's "Tales of the gun"
What I am trying to say is a weapon is merely a tool in the killer's mind.
The U.S. has a "Zero-Tolerance" Policy towards weapons in school. Has any one heard of the kindergartener who was expelled for bringing a FINGERNAIL CLIPPER to school? Once in sixth grade I went camping with my scout troop over the weekend and forgot to remove my knife from my pocket on Monday, when I realized I had it I was terrified. Fortunately i didn't get caught.
I apologize if this seems off topic, but to me it seems relevant. Also think of this: A boy helps his grandmother move over the weekend and a butter knife gets left in his car. Some one sees the knife and notifies the school athorities... This kid is an all A honor roll student who has just lost
everything, because he is now permanently expelled... Now consider the same scenario except make the boy an active gang member... He too has no intention of harming any one that day, but these two boys aren't interested in hurting anyone at that point they will both be punished for something that should not even be a crime.
Well this is my opinion: A gun with the firing pin removed or deactivated somehow is just an odd shaped club, If one is into martial arts then his/her hands, feet, well they are weapons...I was a green belt in TAE-KWON-DO.
I can't write any more I need to go to school...
If any one feels offended by this feel free to e-mail me.
"Live free, die well."
No Malin, it is not...
I suppose my hands and feet should be removed since they could also be deadly weapons - as well as any other martial artist. They were not designed to be that way, but could be now since I have trained in martial arts... So what do we do for that case?
Glas,
Our views on sarcasm are different (amongst other things it seems!
), it is quite useful in making points and certainly does not invalidate anything I have written... If it did, you would not have gotten it.
Who is going to pay for the "program" to put a serial number or UV signature (?) on all those crossbow bolts and arrows. BTW, were those items not designed to cause harm? If so they should be illegal per your reasoning...
I wonder how difficult it would have been for mankind to achieve the level of "civilization" he has without such tools as spears, bows, knives, etc.? Certainly those implements were created to cause harm, no? Does it matter that they were created to cause harm to animals, and men soon discovered they could also harm each other? Or was it the other way around?
I think some of you are true Shakespeareans, and the below will not calm your qualms - you may yet wish to be living in the feudal age (perhaps your ancestors were robber barons?):
"SHAKESPEARE’S opinion of firearms and explosives has, no doubt, been shared by thousands in every age, yet for all that it must be remembered that it was the invention of gunpowder which brought the Feudal Age to an end. Before its invention, the great keeps of the robber barons were impregnable, and so long as those conditions remained civilization was in chains and liberty was impossible. When cannon loaded with gunpowder were able to batter down the towering stone walls of the castles an unbearable tyranny gradually disappeared.
There is another thing to be said in favor of firearms. In olden days, when the soldier’s weapons were the bow and the sword, the art of war was easy and the entire manhood of a tribe or a nation could be turned, if need be, into the field to fight at the shortest notice. But the invention of firearms made the art of war more difficult, and to turn the citizen into the soldier a period of training became absolutely necessary. So, by degrees, instead of every able-bodied man being ordered out to fight, comparatively small standing armies came into being, and before the Great War there was actually less slaughter in battle than in the days before guns and gunpowder were invented.
Remember folks - this is a discussion. I think no less of any of you for having different opinions. You have ALL done extremely well, and this shows the diversity of our folks in ELH, and that we CAN actually all get along. Kudos to EVERYONE!!!
I suppose my hands and feet should be removed since they could also be deadly weapons - as well as any other martial artist. They were not designed to be that way, but could be now since I have trained in martial arts... So what do we do for that case?
Glas,
Our views on sarcasm are different (amongst other things it seems!
), it is quite useful in making points and certainly does not invalidate anything I have written... If it did, you would not have gotten it.Who is going to pay for the "program" to put a serial number or UV signature (?) on all those crossbow bolts and arrows. BTW, were those items not designed to cause harm? If so they should be illegal per your reasoning...
I wonder how difficult it would have been for mankind to achieve the level of "civilization" he has without such tools as spears, bows, knives, etc.? Certainly those implements were created to cause harm, no? Does it matter that they were created to cause harm to animals, and men soon discovered they could also harm each other? Or was it the other way around?
I think some of you are true Shakespeareans, and the below will not calm your qualms - you may yet wish to be living in the feudal age (perhaps your ancestors were robber barons?):
"SHAKESPEARE’S opinion of firearms and explosives has, no doubt, been shared by thousands in every age, yet for all that it must be remembered that it was the invention of gunpowder which brought the Feudal Age to an end. Before its invention, the great keeps of the robber barons were impregnable, and so long as those conditions remained civilization was in chains and liberty was impossible. When cannon loaded with gunpowder were able to batter down the towering stone walls of the castles an unbearable tyranny gradually disappeared.
There is another thing to be said in favor of firearms. In olden days, when the soldier’s weapons were the bow and the sword, the art of war was easy and the entire manhood of a tribe or a nation could be turned, if need be, into the field to fight at the shortest notice. But the invention of firearms made the art of war more difficult, and to turn the citizen into the soldier a period of training became absolutely necessary. So, by degrees, instead of every able-bodied man being ordered out to fight, comparatively small standing armies came into being, and before the Great War there was actually less slaughter in battle than in the days before guns and gunpowder were invented.
Remember folks - this is a discussion. I think no less of any of you for having different opinions. You have ALL done extremely well, and this shows the diversity of our folks in ELH, and that we CAN actually all get along. Kudos to EVERYONE!!!
Helmut
If you mean that the development of guns and gunpowder has reduced the level of slaughter then you are 1. not taking into account the development of modern medicine. 2. Totally mad, I can't find the words to explain how totally gob-smacked that someone can make this kind of statement. Look at the impact modern weapons have made on the battlefield when deployed against inferior technology. examples:less slaughter in battle than in the days before guns and gunpowder were invented.
The use of water cooled vickers machine guns against the Zulu's.
The use of Tanks against Polish Cavalry in the 2nd World War.
There are thousands of examples like this were one side having a significant technogical advantage has totally decimated the opposition. Look at the balance of casualities Iraq suffered in the Gulf War compared to alliance losses, wasn't it something stupid like 1000 dead iraqi's to 1 dead alliance soldier, at least when both sides were armed with swords if you had superior numbers you had a good chance of winning, now it's who has the best toys.
Malin
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
Mav, I love you 
you've summed up the point I was trying to express all along. People kill people not guns, it isn't about removing the common persons right to carry a gun it's about whether the person is responsible enough to carry a gun.
Other guys here talk about "if you can't get a gun then you'll just make a bomb" making a bomb takes alot of research, energy, thought. As in pre-meditated murder. This type of person no matter what laws you have in place will find a way to hurt other people.
Gun control won't stop the type of person described above but will can reduce the other types of murder, i.e when two normal guys get into a heated argument, one pulls a gun shoots the other in a moment of rage. Or a student in a fit of rage goes and gets his gun walks into school and shoots his lecturer because of a supposed slight on his character.
Malin
you've summed up the point I was trying to express all along. People kill people not guns, it isn't about removing the common persons right to carry a gun it's about whether the person is responsible enough to carry a gun.
Other guys here talk about "if you can't get a gun then you'll just make a bomb" making a bomb takes alot of research, energy, thought. As in pre-meditated murder. This type of person no matter what laws you have in place will find a way to hurt other people.
Gun control won't stop the type of person described above but will can reduce the other types of murder, i.e when two normal guys get into a heated argument, one pulls a gun shoots the other in a moment of rage. Or a student in a fit of rage goes and gets his gun walks into school and shoots his lecturer because of a supposed slight on his character.
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
-
Slamhammer
- Posts: 279
- Joined: 12 May 2001, 17:00
- Location: Missouri
Sorry to interup.....I trying to run a unit here Doc get your boys to sign up in fourm also..make sure they read the ELH code on the web page...I think it was prigrine and some others that wanted to join..make it happen...they will all go along with you to Cricketts regt......That is all...have back at it...
Doc get your boys to sign up in fourm also..make sure they read the ELH code on the web page...I think it was prigrine and some others that wanted to join..make it happen...they will all go along with you to Cricketts regt......That is all...have back at it...