I was reading in a Norwegian news paper (http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2007/04/18/498097.html) about the school massacre in Virginia a couple of days ago. Even though it is a totally terrible thing that happened, it is too far away (and scarily enough, also almost getting kind of "normal" over there) to affect me in any significant way. What really shocked me though was what I read at the end of the article:
Many over there thinks that the massacre at Virginia Tech shows that students should be allowed to carry arms at the campus area, in order to be able to defend their selves :blink:
A guy named John Velleco from the interest group Gun Owners of America even said to ABC News that "It is tragic to disarm the citizens and make these weapon free zones mandatory. It only means a way to give these crazy persons numerous easy targets." :blink::blink:
I barely have words when I hear statements such as that. Just imagine how it would be if every student and teacher would carry a gun in their rucksack together with their books, pens and pencils and packed lunch :wacko:
Quote from: Bob;185721I barely have words when I hear statements such as that. Just imagine how it would be if every student and teacher would carry a gun in their rucksack together with their books, pens and pencils and packed lunch :wacko:
But, I wonder, is this the view of the extreme? Is this the concensus? How many people support the gun owners etc? I know the south is more gun-happy than the north, but say a large minority actually was in favour of reducing gun-free zones I would be really shocked. I hope this is just spokesperson from GOoA making the best of a situation.
Quote from: delanvital;185722I know the south is more gun-happy than the north, but say a large minority actually was in favour of reducing gun-free zones I would be really shocked.
This horrible incident happend in a state where any kid over the age of 12 with enough money can legaly buy rifles upto a M14 w/o consent of its perants.
Tbh, the fact that this **** happens almost yearly now in the states and not at all everywhere else (in holland we had one kid shoot a single teacher a few years back as only gun incident in school in known history) should be proof enough that the current system in the USA really doesnt work.
Then again, USA aint doing too badly for a 3th world country.
In essence I agree with you Bob. But... What the guy says is true. If everyone had been carrying a gun would the shooter have killed so many? I think not. He would have been cut down in a trice!
Let me make it clear that I DO NOT condone the use of guns, and here's another 'but', an American was speaking on British radio and stated that in the U.S. they have nothing like the amount of 'hot' burglaries as we do in UK.('hot' as in a buglary where the householders are at home) Burglars don't enter houses with people in them because they're likely to get wasted!
In the UK things are no better. We had a situation where a guy went on the rampage and killed lots (shamefully, I've forgotten how many) of kids and teachers at a school in Dunblane. Knee jerk politics deprived thousands of law abiding members of gun clubs all over the country, of their hobby and gunshop owners of their livelihood and yet it seems to be easier to get hold of a gun now that ever it was. Shootings are two a penny these days and yet guns have been banned! :g:
Tough call.
Quote from: Doorman;185728In essence I agree with you Bob. But... What the guy says is true. If everyone had been carrying a gun would the shooter have killed so many? I think not. He would have been cut down in a trice!
Let me make it clear that I DO NOT condone the use of guns, and here's another 'but', an American was speaking on British radio and stated that in the U.S. they have nothing like the amount of 'hot' burglaries as we do in UK.('hot' as in a buglary where the householders are at home) Burglars don't enter houses with people in them because they're likely to get wasted!
In the UK things are no better. We had a situation where a guy went on the rampage and killed lots (shamefully, I've forgotten how many) of kids and teachers at a school in Dunblane. Knee jerk politics deprived thousands of law abiding members of gun clubs all over the country, of their hobby and gunshop owners of their livelihood and yet it seems to be easier to get hold of a gun now that ever it was. Shootings are two a penny these days and yet guns have been banned! :g:
Tough call.
I cannot help but see fighting hard with hard as a bad choice. The classical stuff, i.e. if you then have guns in the houses, so will the 'hot' burglars. You will then have an armed guard patrolling the neighbourhood. They will come in large numbers.. or something.. you get my point.
I think a much tougher attitude on who can carry guns could make the circle go the right way. Make carrying a gun not worth the punishment.
Quote from: Doorman;185728In essence I agree with you Bob. But... What the guy says is true. If everyone had been carrying a gun would the shooter have killed so many? I think not. He would have been cut down in a trice!
Yes more guns is the right solution! Why don't we equip everyone with a M16. No lets give them a howitzer each at birth! What the heck ... everyone should have their own tactical nuke! The world will be a much safer place with more guns around ... :eyebrow:
In days gone by, I would have happily argued in our dirty step sisters forum....here
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox/89439-more-guns-less-safe-2.html
but I'm not sure I can be bothered this time. For what it's worth I agree with you. I may come back later...
Quote from: Benny;185752In days gone by, I would have happily argued in our dirty step sisters forum....here
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox/89439-more-guns-less-safe-2.html
but I'm not sure I can be bothered this time. For what it's worth I agree with you. I may come back later...
Why'd you have to show that link...
probably to show some opinions from those "over the pond"
Quote from: Benny;185752In days gone by, I would have happily argued in our dirty step sisters forum....here
http://www.tacticalgamer.com/sandbox/89439-more-guns-less-safe-2.html
but I'm not sure I can be bothered this time. For what it's worth I agree with you. I may come back later...
Dirty step sister?!? :byebye:
This incident is surely a terrible tragedy. Personally, I own several firearms and keep them secured at all times. I think on the whole America has a problem with violent crime, I'm not sure the problem is with firearms themselves though.
I do think our gun laws need some revision, but the problem is the two camps seem to refuse a compromise which makes things difficult with our political structure. In some areas of the country the ability to carry a firearm is a necessity of life (such as in the high desert in Oregon where my brother lives).
Quote from: Dr Sadako;185737Yes more guns is the right solution! Why don't we equip everyone with a M16. No lets give them a howitzer each at birth! What the heck ... everyone should have their own tactical nuke! The world will be a much safer place with more guns around ... :eyebrow:
Well done Mats. :rolleyes: First you ignore my disclaimer. Then turn up the wick. Great for discussions, kinda kills it stone dead doesn't it? The point was,
IF everyone else was armed would he have killed 32 people? The answer must be NO. :angry:
Hi Apo, long time....
I'll work up to heading over later, I'm only on page 3 of your thread over there. Although the gun thing has been done to death in that forum in the days of Turtle, Hollywood and Cing.
Off topic. Hope all is well over there? And there are 2 meanings to the word dirty...I meant the Christina version
Quote from: Doorman;185765Well done Mats. :rolleyes: First you ignore my disclaimer. Then turn up the wick. Great for discussions, kinda kills it stone dead doesn't it?
From your last post I got the feeling that you didn't condone the use of guns? Was that a misunderstanding?
Quote from: Doorman;185728Let me make it clear that I DO NOT condone the use of guns,
Quote from: Doorman;185765The point was, IF everyone else was armed
would he have killed 32 people? The answer must be NO. :angry:
The point is,
IF no one at all was armed would he have killed 32 people? The answer must be NO.
Quote from: Benny;185773Hi Apo, long time....
I'll work up to heading over later, I'm only on page 3 of your thread over there. Although the gun thing has been done to death in that forum in the days of Turtle, Hollywood and Cing.
Off topic. Hope all is well over there? And there are 2 meanings to the word dirty...I meant the Christina version
Yeah, we've seen the whole gun control thing time and time again. This new incarnation is a bit of a mess considering all the "academic" controls applied to the discussion, but it's no less frustrating than ever!
All is well on our side of the pond. I keep meaning to get over here more often to see what you good folks are up to, but something always ends up distracting me! :)
There has to be a compromise between a total gun ban (like the UK) and the Wild West throwback that is (some states of) the US.
You need to pass a proficiency test to obtain a licence to a) drive a car (lethal weapon) or b) ride a motorcycle (instrument of Satan), c) fly a plane (9/11 anyone?) and d) run a mobile burger van(a & b), so why not test people's proficiency and psychological aptitude before allowing them to own a firearm?
I doubt there's anyone in the UK who couldn't procure a (illegal) handgun within a couple of weeks if they really wanted to...
Quote from: DogMeat;185798There has to be a compromise between a total gun ban (like the UK) and the Wild West throwback that is (some states of) the US.
You need to pass a proficiency test to obtain a licence to a) drive a car (lethal weapon) or b) ride a motorcycle (instrument of Satan), c) fly a plane (9/11 anyone?) and d) run a mobile burger van(a & b), so why not test people's proficiency and psychological aptitude before allowing them to own a firearm?
I doubt there's anyone in the UK who couldn't procure a (illegal) handgun within a couple of weeks if they really wanted to...
I would support this. You are required in most US states to pass such an exam in order to carry a concealed weapon, but not all states. The issue with this is once again one of legality vs. illegality, is someone intent on committing murder going to care about what permits they have and the legality of the weapon they carry?
In this case, it would have at least identified the kid as having some psychological issues, or so one would hope, and may have saved lives. But considering what I have read about the kid, it may have only delayed the inevitable.
Quote from: Apophis;185799You are required in most US states to pass such an exam in order to carry a concealed weapon
Ehm.. concealed? So if I carry my M16 out in the open I don't?
Quote from: delanvital;185878Ehm.. concealed? So if I carry my M16 out in the open I don't?
Well people would duck for cover or run away when they saw you coming with the weapon :wink:
Seriously though, I think whats meant is that, you are allowed to own a weapon, but you're not allowed to walk around with it for everyone to see.. For self defense only and such, me thinks? (which is the subject here as far as I can understand. Should people be allowed to carry them for self defense or not - would it help etc.)
Anyways, people have said what I wanted to say so far.. Ill go back to being a spectator in the discussion again now :ninja:
Quote from: Nefertem;185885Seriously though, I think whats meant is that, you are allowed to own a weapon, but you're not allowed to walk around with it for everyone to see..
Okay.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9030529
Quote from: delanvital;185878Ehm.. concealed? So if I carry my M16 out in the open I don't?
That depends on the state and local laws. In some states it would be illegal to even own, in others it would only be illegal to transport without a permit, yet in others it's completely legal to carry (under certain circumstances).
You can't just walk into a shopping mall with an M16 though. You would get in trouble for that.
Quote from: delanvital;185903Okay.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9030529
That is quite accurate. These situations are very rare, but the media goes so crazy over them trying to out-do the other media outlets and get better ratings you'd never know it.
Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't stop things like this. I'm not sure why, with this kids history, he was even able to PURCHASE a gun. Well. I know why, but I'm shocked that he was able to.
Quote from: Apophis;185906These situations are very rare
No offense meant, but compared to the rest of the world, it can almost seem normal (normal is probably not the best word here, but in the lack of something better atm.) that these things happen in America :g:
legalising gun ownership, or rather making it easier to own a gun (e.g. farmers in the UK seem to be able to own shotguns so there must be some sort of licensing here...) would just meant there were more guns out there. Once there are more guns out there there would be more people getting shot. Bit of road-rage = bang, cheating partner = bang, drunken rage = bang, etc etc. It's hard to tell with everyone just how likely they are to fly into uncontrolled rages.
At the moment occasionally some crazy will get a gun into a no-weapons zone and go on a killing spree. If people were allowed to carry them about by default the crazies would just get weapons in more easily as it'd be normal (some hopefully get caught before they start killing people) and there'd be an increase in guns being used during exceptionally emotive arguments. Once the guns are drawn neither party is going to want to lower first as they probably don't trust the person pointing a gun at them.
Strict gun controls ftw. Give mm-wave and similar tech a little longer and we'll be able to scan crowds for weapons and suchlike automatically. Done properly it shouldn't be an invasion of privacy, or at the worst a very temporary one unless the computer believes it can see a weapon concealed on your person :norty:.
edit: perhaps the other extreme argument of detaining people who are thought of as likely to become violent before they have actually committed any crime is a better extreme solution than handing out guns. It still just doesn't sound right. Thought Police coming soon to a city near you?
edit2: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6572743.stm
apparently he'd been referred to a psychiatric ward a year before, a judge had ruled he was a danger to himself and to others, and yet he slipped through the net/system. Some people flip out, most don't, ...I hope