Another school shooting

[Flint]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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!

[Flint]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I won't condemn gun-owners for their mentality, only for owning guns they don't need.

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]

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.

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.

[MaggieL]

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]

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.

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 .