The Cellar
Page 1 of 4 1 234
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Another school shooting (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=11915)

Shawnee123 10-02-2006 12:26 PM
Another school shooting
 
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15105305/?GT1=8618

Has the entire world lost its ever-lovin' mind? :sniff:

xoxoxoBruce 10-02-2006 12:34 PM
A tragedy, but how many millions of schools are there? and billions of people?
I hardly think this isolated incident indicates the "World" has lost it's mind. That said, I'm sure there are thousands of wackos out there capable of the same thing.:(

bbro 10-02-2006 12:36 PM
I saw that! I mean, it's amish country for goodness sake! they don't bother anyone!

Shawnee123 10-02-2006 12:44 PM
Sept 14th: man kills one and wounds at least 20 (some severely) in shooting in a college in Montreal

Sept 29th: student kills principal in Cazenovia WI

Sept 21st: 3 students charged with conspiracy to commit homicide for allegedly planning to attack their school with guns and bombs in Green Bay, WI

Sept 27: man kills 16 year old girl after holding six girls hostage and sexually assaulting them in a school in Bailey, CO

Today: at least six killed in a shooting in an Amish school in Lancaster PA


I realize this is hardly a dent in the millions of schools and billions of people, but I don't remember a trend quite like this one. Are you saying it's just getting more press?

MaggieL 10-02-2006 12:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123
Are you saying it's just getting more press?
It is precisely because it gets so much press that it happens as often as it does. When people come to believe the only way they can touch the world they see on TV and online, the same world that seems to ignore them totally in real life, this can be the result.

Spexxvet 10-02-2006 12:57 PM
Funny - none stabbed or beaten to death, poisoned or starved. The second ammendment rules! :mad:

If every student, teacher and administrator had beened armed, these things would never have happened. :rolleyes:

MaggieL 10-02-2006 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spexxvet
Funny - none stabbed or beaten to death, poisoned or starved. The second ammendment rules! :mad:

If every student, teacher and administrator had beened armed, these things would never have happened. :rolleyes:
It would be just as illegal for all minor students to be armed as it was for the perps in these cases.

But teachers and administrators who have students under their care and protection in loco parentis (and who are legally able themselves; convicted felons and ex-mental patients with teaching licences need not apply) should certainly consider it; they have a duty to their charges to protect them.

Of course the painfully liberal NEA wouldn't hear of that...

And what makes you say no students were stabbed or beaten to death? I think it's certain that quite a few were during the interval in question...but they seem to get different treatement in the press somehow. The same way that an aircraft crash with two fatalities gets vastly more coverage than an automobile crash with the same mortality, I suppose, which is much more charitable than inferring a political motivation from a liberal press.

Spexxvet 10-02-2006 01:26 PM
A mass school stabbing would get just as much press

Shawnee123 10-02-2006 01:29 PM
I think it would be harder to kill a large number of people if you were armed with only knives, sticks, and rocks.

9th Engineer 10-02-2006 01:32 PM
Gun prohibition would be no different than alcohol prohibition anyway. If you make it illegal you'll just drive it underground and create cartels.

Besides, it's in the constitution, rewrite it if you have a problem.

Shawnee123 10-02-2006 01:36 PM
9th, are you off your meds again?

"Rewrite it if you have a problem"? Testy much?

:stickpoke

9th Engineer 10-02-2006 01:59 PM
Testy? Absolutly. I've been working 13 hour days for the past two weeks including weekends. September/October is hell for students anyway and taking 20 credits doesn't help matters. Temper tends to go short on 5 hours of sleep.

Shawnee123 10-02-2006 02:18 PM
I KNOW about these months for student, I'm an administrator who gets to deal with them. Working those hours when the students are yelling at you because they turned in their paperwork WAY late doesn't help either. Working so hard trying to help those students doesn't help either. Nor does finding out the guy you moved in with, who used up all your money so that you are so deep in debt that you have to declare bankruptcy, is calling his ex-girlfriend who he previously hated doesn't help either. Having a car that needs brakes so badly you're afraid to drive it doesn't help either. Trying to figure out how you're going to afford to move out, pay an atty to declare bankruptcy, get your car fixed, and find a way to live doesn't help. Needing glasses and dental work that there's no way you can afford doesn't help.

So, I'm testy too. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree and get on with it.

MaggieL 10-02-2006 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123
I think it would be harder to kill a large number of people if you were armed with only knives, sticks, and rocks.
It's much easier to kill any number of people if they've been disarmed than otherwise. Disarming a victim is ever so much easier than disarming a perp...victims usually don't break laws. Even less likely to be a criminal is a legally armed citizen; they prefer to keep their licences.

Since schools and universities are garanteed to be victim disarmament zones, they attract perps who are comitting suicide-by-cop but want to take a significant number of victims with them. This also applies to post offices and many factories.

BigV 10-02-2006 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Even less likely to be a criminal is a legally armed citizen; they prefer to keep their licences.
Are you saying that I, a citizen who is not armed, am MORE likely to be a criminal than you, who are legally armed? Because you're "legally armed"? That makes you...more law abiding than me? Based on what?

I call bull shit.

JayMcGee 10-02-2006 06:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9th Engineer
Testy? Absolutly. I've been working 13 hour days for the past two weeks including weekends. September/October is hell for students anyway and taking 20 credits doesn't help matters. Temper tends to go short on 5 hours of sleep.

hey, chill out man..... grab a gun, go shoot some kids....

Dr. Zaius 10-02-2006 07:00 PM
Geez...this is so twisted. Coldly executing children you don't know isn't bad enough. He executes kids dressed in 19th century headbonnets and homemade garb. Why not kill Santa Claus while yer at it?

I wanna divorce from the human race. :(

Elspode 10-02-2006 09:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawnee123
I think it would be harder to kill a large number of people if you were armed with only knives, sticks, and rocks.
Probably not in the case today, as the victims were bound before being shot.

MaggieL 10-02-2006 09:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigV
Are you saying that I, a citizen who is not armed, am MORE likely to be a criminal than you, who are legally armed? Because you're "legally armed"? That makes you...more law abiding than me? Based on what?

I call bull shit.
Statistically, those licenced for concealed carry commit fewer crimes per capita than the general population. Not surprising, because they're screened for criminal history, and if they're convicted of a crime they lose their licences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://gunfacts.info
Myth: People with concealed weapons will commit crimes
Fact: The results for the 30 states that have passed “shall-issue” laws for concealed carry permits are similar. Here are some specific cases:
State Permits issued Revoked permits % Revoked
Florida 551,000 109 0.02%[31]
Virginia 50,000 0 0.00%[32]
Arizona 63,000 50 0.08%[33]
Fact: People with concealed carry permits are:[34]
· 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
· 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
-----------------
[30] FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 1992 – for following bullet points
[31] October 1987 through Jan 1999
[32] 1995 – no follow-up data available
[33] 1994 through 1998
[34] William Strdevant, unpublished study reported in August 2000 edition of America’s 1st Freedom
-----------------
Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry permits are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime.[35]

Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem, as in Texas – “because there haven't been Wild West shootouts in the streets”.[36]

Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.

Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since 1989, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator than a person with a concealed carry permit.[37]

Myth: Texas CCW holders are arrested 66% more often
Fact: This claim comes from the Violence Policy Center (VPC), a gun control policy group. Most arrests the VPC cites are not for any form of violent crime (for example, bounced checks or tax delinquency). [38]

Fact: This data is also for arrests, not convictions.

Fact: Many of these arrests came in the early years of Texas CCWs, when the law was not understood by most of the law enforcement community or prosecutors.

Fact: Compared to the entire population, Texas CCW holders are about 7.6 times less likely to be arrested of a violent crime.[39] The numbers breakdown as follows:

° 214,000 CCW holders
° 526 (0.2%) felony arrests of CCW holders that have been adjudicated
° 100 (0.05%) felony convictions

Fact: The four year violent crime rate for CCW holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other words, CCW holders are 5.3 times less likely to commit a violent crime.[40]
-------------------
[35] Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-
News, September, 2000
[36] Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000
[37] Florida Department of State, “Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report”, 1998 – Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998
[38] “Basis For Revocation Or Suspension Of Texas Concealed “, Texas Department of Public Safety,
December 1, 1998
[39] Texas Department of Corrections data, 1996-2000, compiled by the Texas State Rifle Association,
www.tsra.com/arrests.htm
[40] “An Analysis Of The Arrest Rate Of Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders As Compared To The Arrest Rate Of The Entire Texas Population”, William E. Sturdevant, September 1, 2000

marichiko 10-02-2006 10:13 PM
What are we coming to that we are killing helpless children? Sometimes I grow so weary of this world. The guy picked the people least able to defend themselves, too. The Amish don't beleive in guns. As someone else pointed out, since his victims were tied up anyway, he could have used a knife or strangled them with his bear hands. He could have thrown a homemade bomb into the classroom.

The problem is not gun ownership. In Finland, 50% of all households own at least one gun, and their gun related homicide rate is only .87%. By contrast, the US with a mere 42% of all households owning guns has a gun related homicide rate of something like 6.7%.

Finland has a free press, too; so its not Maggie's liberal media which is responsible for this disparity. US society has some deep problems, in case no one has noticed.:(

xoxoxoBruce 10-02-2006 10:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marichiko
The Amish don't beleive in guns.
I don't believe that to be true for the Lancaster, County, PA Amish. It's my understanding that they hunt. :confused:

wolf 10-02-2006 11:07 PM
Amish County, Amish School, but plain old shooter with a mysterious grudge.

The location of the incident is interesting, but irrelevant. Until they know more about the shooter's motivation, the notion of a "school shooting" is not really what we have here, except in the sense that it occured in a school. The shooter was some guy ... a milk truck driver, not a student at the school, not even an age mate.

wolf 10-02-2006 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marichiko
The problem is not gun ownership. In Finland, 50% of all households own at least one gun, and their gun related homicide rate is only .87%. By contrast, the US with a mere 42% of all households owning guns has a gun related homicide rate of something like 6.7%.

Finland has a free press, too; so its not Maggie's liberal media which is responsible for this disparity. US society has some deep problems, in case no one has noticed.
The United States problems include the drug trade, lack of family structure, and unlike Finland, we do not have a homogenous population.

I do wonder what the homicide statistics would look like if you removed all drug-related shootings ... probably a lot closer to Finland's number.

wolf 10-02-2006 11:17 PM
PEOPLE who don't deserve it.

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 10:08 AM
Quote:
And it was clear from interviews with his co-workers at the dairy that his mood had darkened in recent days and he had stopped chatting and joking around with fellow employees and customers, the officer said.
If I had started behaving this way my co-workers and customers would have called the phsyc immediately. If people cared more about each other (even those they don't particularly know) then we probably wouldn't have so many problems with crimes related to mental instablility. But its all in retrospect sometimes. :-(

rkzenrage 10-03-2006 10:12 AM
Yup... because it sounded to me like "if people were more nosy and fucked with someone who was having a bad day more....". Shit like that would make me want to shoot someone.

Trilby 10-03-2006 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkzenrage
Yup... because it sounded to me like "if people were more nosy and fucked with someone who was having a bad day more....". Shit like that would make me want to shoot someone.
I see your point, rkz, but I also have come to believe that more intervention-esp. among the fringe-(identified mental health folk and assorted other identified) is really needed in this country. We've thrown a lot of nuts out on the street in the name of saving a buck (those bucks aren't really saved, just spend elsewhere) and cut mental health reimbursments/services down to the nubbin. Watching a paranoid-schizophrenic walk down the street carrying all her earthly possessions into nowhere is a sad sight. I've seen it many a time--crazies get discharged into a no-win situation and end up doing a crazy thing.
I don't know for a fact that mr. shoot-up-the-Amish was crazed but I suspect he was.

Pangloss62 10-03-2006 11:10 AM
Quote:
they prefer to keep their licences.
But at the core, they REALLY LOVE their guns. Most every gun owner in this country doesn't really "need" his gun/s, for self-defense or otherwise. They just LOVE them sooooooo much. The guns are substitutes for their essential insecurity and self-loathing.

Then some kid yesterday in AZ steals an AK-47 from his parents house. I hear the gun people say "They did not store the gun properly...blah blah blah." That may be true, but why do these people have an AK-47 in their house? For self defense? I doubt it. It's because they love the power they feel when they hold it in their hands. Eventually, if life becomes too much to deal with for them or their children, they will use it on others. I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.

Trilby 10-03-2006 11:16 AM
"When I held that gun in my hand, I felt a surge of power...like God must feel when he's holding a gun." ---quoth Homer S., NRA member--for a brief time.

Pangloss62 10-03-2006 11:18 AM
Perfect!
 
:thumb: :shotgun:

Undertoad 10-03-2006 11:25 AM
You don't really think of yourself as a bigot, do you Pan?

marichiko 10-03-2006 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
Eventually, if life becomes too much to deal with for them or their children, they will use it on others. I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.
Yeah, I bet the Finns with their 50% of all households owning guns are going to declare war on us any day. And your neighbor who's such an expert cook with all those sharp knives in her kitchen? I'd keep an eye on her if I were you. Sure, some people love their guns. Some people love their cars, too. So what? I love animals. Does that mean that one day, I'm going to set a pack of snarling Rottweilers loose on a two-year old? You're just showing your bias against gun owners, not making a coherent argument.

Trilby 10-03-2006 11:31 AM
Gulp. This isn't about gun owners (god rest them) it's about nuts--right?

PS--re: Finns. WTF? The Finn's are like--like, comparing the US to Greenland! Come ON!

Pangloss62 10-03-2006 11:31 AM
Bigot
 
Quote:
You don't really think of yourself as a bigot, do you Pan?
To some degree, yes. But I think there's a little biggot in everyone.

More to the point, having encountered many gun-owners, I do see that they tend to fetishize their weapons. And sure, I fetishize things too; but there is something inherently scary about the way people obsess over their guns. And yes, people kill people...with their guns.:neutral:

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 11:36 AM
I can see the reason to own rifles, shotguns, and even small handguns but after a point it is simply to give themselves a sense of domination. You see this type of behavior with other things such as cars, houses, even education...the more the bigger the best. Everyone exhibits this kind of mentality, and we can't just accuse or condem gun-owners for it. Most criminals who commited a crime with a gun, used an illegally attained or stolen gun.

Quote:
Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Trilby 10-03-2006 11:42 AM
Also quoth Homer S. -- If I didn’t have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here anytime he wants and start shoving you around--you want that, huh, DO YOU?

Pangloss62 10-03-2006 11:43 AM
Mentality
 
Quote:
Everyone exhibits this kind of mentality, and we can't just accuse or condem gun-owners for it.
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
To some degree, yes. But I think there's a little biggot in everyone.

More to the point, having encountered many gun-owners, I do see that they tend to fetishize their weapons. And sure, I fetishize things too; but there is something inherently scary about the way people obsess over their guns. And yes, people kill people...with their guns.:neutral:
There are more vehicle related deaths than gun related. People love their cars, and "fetishize" them as well. In the last year I have been in two wrecks and I know of 3 other ppl at my work who have been wrecked. When I was in HS I knew of 5 kids who were killed or paralyzed in a car wreck or had a close relative killed or seriously injured. I knew of none who were injured by a gun during that time. Sorry I knew of one...he accidently shot himself in the leg when he had gone bird hunting...fortunatly it was just birdshot. He couldn't run track for a while though.

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
So what constitutes need?

Flint 10-03-2006 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morethanpretty
People love their cars, and "fetishize" them as well.
Observation: cars have a primary purpose which is not violence-related...

Pangloss62 10-03-2006 11:47 AM
Need
 
Quote:
So what constitutes need?
Good question.

Trilby 10-03-2006 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
Good question.
Easy question. Ask any kid who's been bullied beyond tolerance.

Happy Monkey 10-03-2006 11:59 AM
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold needed guns.

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 12:06 PM
Do you consider hunting strictly violence related then? Many people hunt for the food, you can't get wild texas pig in the supermarket. People tend to be more responsible when handling a gun because the risk involved is easily recognizable to them. People often don't give a shit when it comes to their driving or they just don't think that there is that much of a risk. That is why ppl don't care to tie down the furniture so that it falls out when they are on the hwy and causes a wreck behind them (saw it happen this weekend). That is why I was totalled 2 weeks ago when a semi rock truck decided to pass ppl in the turn lane. Cars aren't directly related to violence so people don't relate them to violence. But yet you can kill more people with one car than one bullet. There are more responsible gun owners then you are giving them credit for.

Undertoad 10-03-2006 12:10 PM
Pan, I'm just calling you on it...

Even your anecdotal evidence is broken, because when you say "having encountered many gun owners", you're not really talking about the gun owners you've encountered. You're talking about the asshole gun owners you've encountered. The rest of them, you did not even know they were a gun owner. Some of them wouldn't tell you even if you asked.

I would very much like to shoot an AK-47, because it's one of the most common rifles in the world and has been involved in tons of conflicts and continues to be. I would like to know what it does so I can understand.

Flint 10-03-2006 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morethanpretty
Do you consider hunting strictly violence related then?
violence
1. swift and intense force
2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment

Trilby 10-03-2006 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold needed guns.
i'm saying the emotions run higher than you or I could imagine. I am not saying those boys needed guns or should have been violent. Sheesh. I guess you find what you are looking for, eh, Monkey? You are soooo good at that. Twist, twist, twist.

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 12:15 PM
3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
4. a violent act or proceeding.
5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
6. damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

you forgot a few

Flint 10-03-2006 12:18 PM
I meant what I meant. Guns are designed to inflict harm. I didn't specify justfied or non-justified harm.
I simply meant that guns are designed to cause harm, while cars are designed to transport.

Quote:
Originally Posted by morethanpretty
There are more responsible gun owners then you are giving them credit for.
I haven't said anything about gun owners...

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 12:21 PM
ok we are totally getting caught up in a different subject altogther.

The point is that this man committed a violent act.
He wanted to commit a violent act. Because he was deranged or whatever.
Controlling guns would not have prevented him. Whether he got his arsenal legally or illegally he still would have gotten them.
He still would have killed the Amish girls.
The only possible way to have stopped him was to have recognized his mental instability beforehand and gotten him treatment.
And then he still had the potential to commit this act or a similar one.
It is tragic. It is a part of our lives.

marichiko 10-03-2006 12:26 PM
So, Flint are you a vegetarian, then? That hamburger you just ate was once a nice pretty cow, grazing in a summer field. It was then rounded up, taken to the slaughter house, and, according to you, suffered a violent death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianna
PS--re: Finns. WTF? The Finn's are like--like, comparing the US to Greenland! Come ON!
I was questioning the validity of Pangloss's assertion that gun owners have a tendency to turn their guns on others. The Finn's have more guns per household than we do, they've got to do SOMETHING about all that pent up violence! :right:

Flint 10-03-2006 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marichiko
...according to you, suffered a violent death...
No, according to the definition of the word violent. You're stuffing alot of words in my mouth :::spits them out:::

Happy Monkey 10-03-2006 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brianna
i'm saying the emotions run higher than you or I could imagine. I am not saying those boys needed guns or should have been violent. Sheesh. I guess you find what you are looking for, eh, Monkey? You are soooo good at that. Twist, twist, twist.
I didn't twist a thing. That was a softball. A kid who has been bullied beyond tolerance is not a good example of someone who needs a gun.

Flint 10-03-2006 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
A kid who has been bullied beyond tolerance is not a good example of someone who needs a gun.
What about disgruntled Post Office employees?

MaggieL 10-03-2006 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
I fear gun owners because they all have a bit of that gun lust in them, and it's bound to come out eventually.
That's called hoplophobia, on your part.

Could it be that you feel *you* harbor anger that is ultimately uncontrollable, and since that feeling is unacceptable you project it onto others? Since you're so into psychoanalysing, try this on for size.

MaggieL 10-03-2006 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pangloss62
I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.:neutral:
When exactly were you appointed to judge what I may or may not have based on your perception of my "needs"? Your hoplophobia is *your* problem; suck it up and deal with it.

glatt 10-03-2006 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by morethanpretty
Controlling guns would not have prevented him. Whether he got his arsenal legally or illegally he still would have gotten them.
This "fact" is often repeated by gun rights advocates. It's simply not true.

If (and it's a huge "if") guns are outlawed, they will be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. That will leave guns in the hands of criminals. As the criminals are caught, guns will be taken from them. Over time, guns would become scarce. They will become virtually unobtainable.

This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market. You hear every few years about someone being caught with one, but they are not the problem that other guns are. They are virtually non-existant or are kept in hiding where they do exist. The same would happen with all guns if they were outlawed. It would just take time.

marichiko 10-03-2006 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
No, according to the definition of the word violent. You're stuffing alot of words in my mouth :::spits them out:::
Hey, YOU posted it. You can always delete your post. :rolleyes:

MaggieL 10-03-2006 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
This "fact" is often repeated by gun rights advocates. It's simply not true.

If (and it's a huge "if") guns are outlawed, they will be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. That will leave guns in the hands of criminals. As the criminals are caught, guns will be taken from them. Over time, guns would become scarce. They will become virtually unobtainable.

This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market.
Well, that pretty much discredits your opinion on the subject. Full-auto guns aren't illegal at all, and although they are expensive, they are obtainable by those who can pass the background check. I've fired full-auto at the range, and could own one if I thought it was worth the expense...especially the ammunition expense.

Your "as the criminals are caught" scenario may be appealing to you, but it's totally false. After all, following that reasoning, there are no illegal drugs today, right?

morethanpretty 10-03-2006 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
This "fact" is often repeated by gun rights advocates. It's simply not true.

If (and it's a huge "if") guns are outlawed, they will be removed from the hands of law abiding citizens. That will leave guns in the hands of criminals. As the criminals are caught, guns will be taken from them. Over time, guns would become scarce. They will become virtually unobtainable.

This isn't just my opinion. Fully automatic machine guns were outlawed back in the '20s or '30s. You can't easily get them today, even on the black market. You hear every few years about someone being caught with one, but they are not the problem that other guns are. They are virtually non-existant or are kept in hiding where they do exist. The same would happen with all guns if they were outlawed. It would just take time.
But you can't remove guns from the hands of law abiding citizens because of the 2nd amendment.

Quote:
Amendment II - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
And because the method worked with the fully automatic guns doesn't mean it would with other types of firearms. The automatic guns were more expensive and large, therefore harder to smuggle, plus they were mostly used by highly organized crime syndicates. Which don't have the strength today as they did then. Plus their tactics have changed since then...now they are into lobbying ;) .


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:30 PM.
Page 1 of 4 1 234
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.