First off, i wasnt actually aware that the legal age to buy a firearm was 16!! If i remember correctly, I once cancelled a solo holiday to the States because i was 18 at the time and realised i couldnt drink alcohol, the legal age being 21. But yet, if i was an American and 2 years younger, i can go in to my local supermarket and buy a GUN!! That, i have to say, is the most absurd thing i have ever came across in my whole life.
So back to Doc's point. Ive not really looked in to the story myself, but from the titbit in Malin's link, i did notice that the teachers involved were called Professors. I could be wrong, but i would think someone with as grand a title as that teaches teenagers in college, no? In which case, they would be older than 16 and able to legally buy a firearm. And if not, because of the gun laws in America, all they have to do is go home and borrow their father's, who no doubt has one of the 300 million guns freely available in America. Cos i doubt VERY much that of any of the instances that Doc was speaking about, an illegal gun was used by the kids to do what they done!
Glas
Shootings
Moderator: RLG MGMT Team
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
-
BlackHawk*K
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: 12 May 2001, 17:00
- Location: Oklahoma
again some good points made here and some more defined areas are becomeing clearer.
i just have to voice up that i disagree that a firearm is different then a automobile. and here is my reasononing behind it.
i believe that the muzle loaded rifle with the flint lock was desighned actualy to take the place of the bow and arrow. of course any militant type organazion would use this to main and kill ppl. however i believe for the most part in the US. it was used to hunt game to bring food to the table. as most rifles are bought and used for now, at least to the point that I MYSELF have seen it. in my area when hunting season comes around there are a huge amount of ppl who take a week off and go to work. sometimes 2 days one season, and maybe a few days on some bird season. while a deer may not feed a family all year around. and as far as i have seen in oregon your not allowed more then 1 a year, per any given season, i DO know that the extra meat is greatly helpfull to offset the costs of buying food in the markets. now that is my responce as to why the riffle was made.
now lets look at something here about autos. i know that some feel that if guns were banned and saved ONE person it would be worth it as stated above... i CAN see the reasoning behind that. but if it its to apply to not just hand guns or assualts and the types but to hutning riffles, shot guns and other firearm weapons. that some of us use to help ourselves out to provide for our families. and please correct me if im wrong, but the underlying important varialble is the safty of human life. then the automobile is a huge threat. as far as i see far more ppl die every year from car crashes due to many kinds of reason then fireams... and we COULD not use cars if we had better community transportation such as rails and busses setup that we realy wouldnt need our cars. or like in china and other realy crowded cities use bikes to get around. then why not have the same restrictions? after all the botom line is the saftey of human life is it not? the firearm and the automobile are tools desighned to help us have a better life. imagine before they came out? how long of a walk is it to the nearest city? half a day? a day? a week? what about gathering products and transporting them. how much harder to gather food when in a settlement out in the middle of nowhere... tust me ive seen these places, eastern oregon is riddles with settlements out in the middle of literaly NOWHERE. if a person had to use a bow and arrow to hunt down game, they most likely woundt survive at all. and if they did. it was becuse the huntsman was VERY good at it. the riffle made life possible in these places that would of been ordinarily imposible for normal folk i believe. it may be true that the firearm may not play as an important role in everyday survival but it still can help it out some. when a hind quarter of deer in my freezer helps feed my family for months on end im VERY gratefull. but again, like all things that are used for good, you got ppl who just HAVE to use them for evil perposes. and cars been used in the same way as many many other things. what was supposed to help mankind was turned perverse. do we fight the peversion or talk all the tools they use away? if we take one. then WHY NOT the others? and if we do that what is the impact on us?
i know the question has been asked about how the families feel about those who been killed by handguns and fireamrs in general.
but i wounder, how many families out there have been saved by handguns and other firearms? how many fathers can keep going home to their family becuse they had the ability to defend themselves? how gratefull the wife and children must be.
i feel the way i do becuse of what ive seen and experiance in life. to say that my logic if flawed is wrong, just as it is to say anyone one elses, you see in my life my point of view makes scence, but its my life and cercomestances and experiances that dicate it. just as it is all of you out there. for me, the choice to have a firearm is important to me. if i wanted to hunt i would like to be able to perchace a firearm and do that to provide for my family. if i feel endangered in a nieghbor hood i would like to be able to own a firearm to protect myself and family. Sure a base ball bat might take out a single invader comeing into my home, but what about 2 or 3 or more? a fire arm might be able to do this however. the wellfare of my family is my highest concern in my life. and becuse of this, maybe to some ppls surprise i choose NOT to own one at this time. the reason is i got hugely curious kids. if i cant keep them off my PC or out of my tools in the garage ( and they getting REALY sneaky at it!!! grrrr...) then how can i insure they wont get access to my firearm? i am fortuante to live in a place where violence is fairly low. so the trade off of not haveing a firearm vs. protecting my children from the same is worth it for me. but in an area where violence was high, im not sure i would make the same choice. all i want is the choice.
i just have to voice up that i disagree that a firearm is different then a automobile. and here is my reasononing behind it.
i believe that the muzle loaded rifle with the flint lock was desighned actualy to take the place of the bow and arrow. of course any militant type organazion would use this to main and kill ppl. however i believe for the most part in the US. it was used to hunt game to bring food to the table. as most rifles are bought and used for now, at least to the point that I MYSELF have seen it. in my area when hunting season comes around there are a huge amount of ppl who take a week off and go to work. sometimes 2 days one season, and maybe a few days on some bird season. while a deer may not feed a family all year around. and as far as i have seen in oregon your not allowed more then 1 a year, per any given season, i DO know that the extra meat is greatly helpfull to offset the costs of buying food in the markets. now that is my responce as to why the riffle was made.
now lets look at something here about autos. i know that some feel that if guns were banned and saved ONE person it would be worth it as stated above... i CAN see the reasoning behind that. but if it its to apply to not just hand guns or assualts and the types but to hutning riffles, shot guns and other firearm weapons. that some of us use to help ourselves out to provide for our families. and please correct me if im wrong, but the underlying important varialble is the safty of human life. then the automobile is a huge threat. as far as i see far more ppl die every year from car crashes due to many kinds of reason then fireams... and we COULD not use cars if we had better community transportation such as rails and busses setup that we realy wouldnt need our cars. or like in china and other realy crowded cities use bikes to get around. then why not have the same restrictions? after all the botom line is the saftey of human life is it not? the firearm and the automobile are tools desighned to help us have a better life. imagine before they came out? how long of a walk is it to the nearest city? half a day? a day? a week? what about gathering products and transporting them. how much harder to gather food when in a settlement out in the middle of nowhere... tust me ive seen these places, eastern oregon is riddles with settlements out in the middle of literaly NOWHERE. if a person had to use a bow and arrow to hunt down game, they most likely woundt survive at all. and if they did. it was becuse the huntsman was VERY good at it. the riffle made life possible in these places that would of been ordinarily imposible for normal folk i believe. it may be true that the firearm may not play as an important role in everyday survival but it still can help it out some. when a hind quarter of deer in my freezer helps feed my family for months on end im VERY gratefull. but again, like all things that are used for good, you got ppl who just HAVE to use them for evil perposes. and cars been used in the same way as many many other things. what was supposed to help mankind was turned perverse. do we fight the peversion or talk all the tools they use away? if we take one. then WHY NOT the others? and if we do that what is the impact on us?
i know the question has been asked about how the families feel about those who been killed by handguns and fireamrs in general.
but i wounder, how many families out there have been saved by handguns and other firearms? how many fathers can keep going home to their family becuse they had the ability to defend themselves? how gratefull the wife and children must be.
i feel the way i do becuse of what ive seen and experiance in life. to say that my logic if flawed is wrong, just as it is to say anyone one elses, you see in my life my point of view makes scence, but its my life and cercomestances and experiances that dicate it. just as it is all of you out there. for me, the choice to have a firearm is important to me. if i wanted to hunt i would like to be able to perchace a firearm and do that to provide for my family. if i feel endangered in a nieghbor hood i would like to be able to own a firearm to protect myself and family. Sure a base ball bat might take out a single invader comeing into my home, but what about 2 or 3 or more? a fire arm might be able to do this however. the wellfare of my family is my highest concern in my life. and becuse of this, maybe to some ppls surprise i choose NOT to own one at this time. the reason is i got hugely curious kids. if i cant keep them off my PC or out of my tools in the garage ( and they getting REALY sneaky at it!!! grrrr...) then how can i insure they wont get access to my firearm? i am fortuante to live in a place where violence is fairly low. so the trade off of not haveing a firearm vs. protecting my children from the same is worth it for me. but in an area where violence was high, im not sure i would make the same choice. all i want is the choice.
-
Buffalo Six
- Posts: 1489
- Joined: 11 Jul 2002, 17:26
- Location: Wichita KS
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
I think we've thrashed the argument to death now, so to change the subject slightly:
In light of recent developments, what views/thoughts/suggestions do you have on how the incidences of violent crime involving the use of firearms can be reduced.
As we have a number of ex-military, police officers, reservists, civil authority workers in the unit there should be some interesting views.
Malin
In light of recent developments, what views/thoughts/suggestions do you have on how the incidences of violent crime involving the use of firearms can be reduced.
As we have a number of ex-military, police officers, reservists, civil authority workers in the unit there should be some interesting views.
Malin
this is not a come back, only temporary solution to a serious addiction problem
-
GlasgowCelts
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 23 Jun 2001, 17:00
- Location: Glasgow
BB, the part where I mentioned that was in relation to a point i was making in that fair enough, if you want guns for hunting, or a pistol to protect your family etc then so be it. But why, then, do you need also to have things like sub-machineguns and automatic rifles. I fail to see what purpose, except for warfare, guns like that could have.
And that has put a nice slant on the discussion Malin. Will be interesting to hear some of the thoughts of ppl who deal with it on a daily basis.
Glas
And that has put a nice slant on the discussion Malin. Will be interesting to hear some of the thoughts of ppl who deal with it on a daily basis.
Glas
NEVER get in to an argument with a stupid person......they will just drag you down to their level then beat you with experience
-
BlackHawk*K
- Posts: 1051
- Joined: 12 May 2001, 17:00
- Location: Oklahoma
i would have to agree with BB on the exposure of Guns, as a young child going threw the hunters saftey course i was greatly impresed by the damage a riffle could do. since then it was a actualy concious thought in my head when dealing with firearms to know where it was aimed at ALL TIMES. you know thinking about it, in part i think i was realy carefull becuse i had this responsibility placed on me when i handled a firearm.
now for instance, i know my own oldest child gets great pride when i give him responsibilty and he does it properly. so i would guess one of the greatest things we could do to help prevent this would be to teach out children abour respect, responsibility and pride in a job well done...
now for instance, i know my own oldest child gets great pride when i give him responsibilty and he does it properly. so i would guess one of the greatest things we could do to help prevent this would be to teach out children abour respect, responsibility and pride in a job well done...
-
Justicebringer
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 07 Aug 2003, 11:19
- Location: Dallas, Texas
Ok Malin you bring up a good point to add to this thread. Gun related violence would be greatly reduced if only we would enforce the laws we already have on the books. Any time you use a firearm in a crime (real or not) it adds an enhancement to the origial charge. this is the first item to be plead away during pre-trial wrangling. IMO this should never be plead away as it is the one thing that will change some a$$holes mind about using the gun (maybe).
But this only works for people who have some semblace of respect for the law. Gang members will always find a way to kill each other. If we outlaw guns for the law-abiding citizen then we leave everyone a victim and all of the crimials still armed. I am all for background checks (instacheck). It takes me 30 seconds to find out if someoe is fit to have a weapon I dot see why that technology cant be used when purchasing weapons.
My point is that the only to reduce gun-violence is to make sure we enforce the laws we have. Passing new ones is just for show when we cant enforce existing legislature.
I will say that most of the cops I work with and know are against banning guns and pretty much think as I do. But then again we also thik we should have mandatory military service so people wont be some damn thin-skinned but alas thats another topic.
Ok thats my 2 cents
But this only works for people who have some semblace of respect for the law. Gang members will always find a way to kill each other. If we outlaw guns for the law-abiding citizen then we leave everyone a victim and all of the crimials still armed. I am all for background checks (instacheck). It takes me 30 seconds to find out if someoe is fit to have a weapon I dot see why that technology cant be used when purchasing weapons.
My point is that the only to reduce gun-violence is to make sure we enforce the laws we have. Passing new ones is just for show when we cant enforce existing legislature.
I will say that most of the cops I work with and know are against banning guns and pretty much think as I do. But then again we also thik we should have mandatory military service so people wont be some damn thin-skinned but alas thats another topic.
Ok thats my 2 cents
Imohtep
Guild Master of The Nemesis Syndicate
Poor is the pupil that does not surpass the master
Guild Master of The Nemesis Syndicate
Poor is the pupil that does not surpass the master
And on that one day BB, you would hear a ppfff... then you would be well..Heaven or hell, in your case most likely hell. Just kiddin.
I agree with mandatory military service. Women should be drafted along with men. People should earn their citizenship through military service not be born with it or be able to get it after a year of living in the U.S.
People aren't exposed enough to guns...so they fear them. I don't. What is the problem with a guy shooting tin cans with a .50 cal MG...Nothing as long as he/she uses it correctly.
I personally think heavy weps should be legal. Somethimes they are the best way to defend yourself. If you are cornered and have a 1911A1, 9mm Beretta, 9mm Glock you are screwed. But if you have say a MP5 with a 150rnd snailshell mag, you have a chance of walking out alive.
I agree with mandatory military service. Women should be drafted along with men. People should earn their citizenship through military service not be born with it or be able to get it after a year of living in the U.S.
People aren't exposed enough to guns...so they fear them. I don't. What is the problem with a guy shooting tin cans with a .50 cal MG...Nothing as long as he/she uses it correctly.
I personally think heavy weps should be legal. Somethimes they are the best way to defend yourself. If you are cornered and have a 1911A1, 9mm Beretta, 9mm Glock you are screwed. But if you have say a MP5 with a 150rnd snailshell mag, you have a chance of walking out alive.
"Live free, die well."
-
Justicebringer
- Posts: 62
- Joined: 07 Aug 2003, 11:19
- Location: Dallas, Texas
-
Featherhorse
- Posts: 431
- Joined: 13 May 2001, 17:00
- Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma USA
Somebody actually sent me something related to this.
I thi I'll pass it on. hehe
Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From Uranus
The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" on Terrorism:
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous-looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question. You're looking for simple solutions to complex issues.
* Does the man look poor or oppressed?
* Have I ever done anything to him that is causing him to attack?
* Could we run away?
* What does my wife think?
* What about the kids?
* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
* What does the law say about this situation?
* Is it possible he'd be happy with killing just me?
* Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
* Are there any relevant UN resolutions concerning the rights of criminals that I should consider before responding?
This is all so confusing. I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Conservative answer: Shoot him dead quickly. Then take your family to a baseball game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem, go to church and praise God for one more day of freedom.
A bit over the top, but I thought I'd put my 2 cents on this thread.
Fethr
I thi I'll pass it on. hehe
Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From Uranus
The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" on Terrorism:
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous-looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?
Liberal Answer: Well, that's not enough information to answer the question. You're looking for simple solutions to complex issues.
* Does the man look poor or oppressed?
* Have I ever done anything to him that is causing him to attack?
* Could we run away?
* What does my wife think?
* What about the kids?
* Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
* What does the law say about this situation?
* Is it possible he'd be happy with killing just me?
* Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
* If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
* Are there any relevant UN resolutions concerning the rights of criminals that I should consider before responding?
This is all so confusing. I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.
Conservative answer: Shoot him dead quickly. Then take your family to a baseball game, eat some hot dogs with apple pie, sing the national anthem, go to church and praise God for one more day of freedom.
A bit over the top, but I thought I'd put my 2 cents on this thread.
Fethr
I know what a BEAST the .50 cal is BB.
And the background checks are way to extensive. Besides would you rather face one heavily armed person or face down a mob of people armed with shotguns, pitols, hunting rifles?
As for modifying a weapon to be full auto... If the government is afraid a few fully automatic rifles... what next if you buy a green car you can paint it any color except for say orange? Also buy restricting certain products doesn't that interfere with business in a way. Say one day the government decides to make caffeine illegal, and from then on we have do drink decaf sodas and coffee. What happens when the government goes too far?
There is no doubt in my mind BB that a .50 is not a good weapon to defend yourself or house with...It is primarily a support weapon right?
Will the United States go the way of the Ancient Roman Empire? It could, my apologies for sort of going off topic.
And the background checks are way to extensive. Besides would you rather face one heavily armed person or face down a mob of people armed with shotguns, pitols, hunting rifles?
As for modifying a weapon to be full auto... If the government is afraid a few fully automatic rifles... what next if you buy a green car you can paint it any color except for say orange? Also buy restricting certain products doesn't that interfere with business in a way. Say one day the government decides to make caffeine illegal, and from then on we have do drink decaf sodas and coffee. What happens when the government goes too far?
There is no doubt in my mind BB that a .50 is not a good weapon to defend yourself or house with...It is primarily a support weapon right?
Will the United States go the way of the Ancient Roman Empire? It could, my apologies for sort of going off topic.
"Live free, die well."