School shooting "phenomenom"

[Dallas 9]

[edited] I'll pass on this oppotunity to speak my mind. My thoughts are with the victims and survivors. That is all.

[baddo 0]

Hey friends

I talked about mentality. Are you an attacker or a defender? I am a defender. I defend myself, my family and my country with the help of the police and with the help of the Defence Forces. I have the impression that many people in the U.S. have handguns for self-protection, which I find a dangerous decision by nature, as I already said in my earlier post. If you carry a handgun with you to protect yourself, you should have made the decision in your mind that you are actually able to use your gun to kill someone. If you have not prepared yourself mentally for such an action, then do not carry a handgun with you please, as I think you put yourself into greater danger by having a gun with you and not being able to use it. I know I don't want to shoot anyone, as does CrashDome and others here too. But again, I have an impression that in the U.S. people have a lower step into using their gun to shoot someone. I am in the belief that the people who make the decision to carry a handgun with them, made the crucial decision somewhere in the back of their heads that they actually can use their guns to shoot other people. Otherwise, I think, they would not be carrying a gun.

It is true that there are a lot of guns in other countries too, like in Finland as CrashDome so well pointed out. Hunting is popular here. I personally know several people who go hunting. They have only hunting rifles and hunting shotguns as far as I know. I appreciate their hobby, I have no problem with it. I have yet to meet persons who carry handguns with them, excluding police officers. Again, I have the impression that if I go to U.S.A. it won't take long until I meet a person who carries a handgun, and is not a police officer. Only an impression and not yet any experience to back it up.

It would be interesting to see statistical information about how many of all the handguns in Finland (or any other country of your choice) and in U.S.A. are being carried with their owners on a daily basis. I admit I make a guess here when I say that the percentage in the U.S.A. is significantly higher than in Finland. That is the mentality I am talking about. Yes, I made a guess and have no statistical data to back it up. If someone can point out such researched data then please do so. Statistical information about how many guns there are in each country per capita does not tell us enough, as has been pointed out by several people by now.

I think the nationality of the person in question in this one shooting does not tell much. He might have taken example of the gun-carrying habits of his American friends, or not. Maybe he had been carrying a handgun with him even before he came to U.S., or not. Quite impossible to prove that into any direction. A fact is that the shooting took place in the U.S. and not in any other country.

In fact the nationality of the shooter brings into my mind a question I asked myself already many years ago: does the fact that there are so much immigrants in the U.S. make the violence rate go up?

No matter what we say here, it won't bring anyone back. I apologize that I have not yet said so here but I grieve the victims of the shooting(s) and I wish their families strength to get over it.

Best wishes,

Baddo.

[shinRaiden 0]

Updates to reality :

* Shooter was a legal resident, no criminal record, no legal reason to deny a gun purchase.

* Shooter legally purchased and passed background checks to obtain the guns.

* The weapons were .38 and .22 caliber semi-automatic pistols. Regulations for possession and usage are primarily on the state level, and vary by locality.

* Basic model unaltered handguns are completely irrelevant to any discussion of the pseudo-assault weapons ban aka gun collectors market inflation racket bill.

* Post-legal purchase, the shooter deliberately and willfully attempted to disguise ownership by filing off the serial numbers.

* Numerous individuals report in retrospect observations of potential mental illness in the shooter, none of which was sufficient grounds for involuntary treatment in a legal adult.

* Federal medical privacy laws are extremely strict about disclosure of doctor-patient confidential information.

* Background checks may include verification of medical records regarding mental illness, however if no voluntary treatment was agreed to and no involuntary treatment was done, then there exists no records to flag.

[+Sokar 0]

30 Round Maginzes and Fully Automatic in the USA, are illegal.

As for the idea of "ban all guns" "people shouldnt have guns".

Why don't you just demand all freedoms in our Country to be simply taken away? You do know there are people out here in the world that enjoy a traditional sport called "Hunting" ? Now I know there are Anti-Hunters out there and blah. I am a Hunter. My family is full of Hunters. We enjoy Deer Hunting during the legal months of the year that we are allowed. I've been brought up around firearms of many sorts all of my life and not one of us have ever even thought about any retarded things like this guy did at VT. Not everyone who owns a firearm "wants to kill somebody". The firearms don't have minds of their own. They don't just go off for no reason. There IS somebody pulling the trigger. If all guns should be banned, then so should Alcohol, which causes many drunk driving accidents around the world. My point is, just because some people commit crimes, that doesn't mean the "Right to Bear Arms" should be taken away.

[AWDrift 0]

I think in the most recent incident the school's officials failed to deal with the problem properly. Instead of trying to gurantee the saftey of the kids they took a risk by assuming the shooter left.

I don't think adopting stricter gun laws similar to those of European countries is going to stop the attacks. We are not like the U.K., Germany, Holland, or any other European nation.

Even if we assume for a second that these laws will significantly bring down the number of guns the attackers will resort to other means. Such as explosives or chemical weapons. The weak point here is the school itself. They need to be prepared to deal with these situations and more importantly watch over the kids mental conditions to stop these things before they start.

[shinRaiden 0]

Based on best-available information a decision was made. In retrospect, we can clearly see that obviously the information was speculative and inaccurate, and possibly may have accentuated the risk.

However, my point previously is that often it is impossible to ascertain the validity of the information in that instance, and decisions must be made on insufficient information.

The only alternative to mediated action on potentially speculative information is to take draconian unilateral preemptive measures. However, you then end up in an exploitable police state where you live in constant lock down.

For further information about the consequences of having to make life or death decisions based on insufficient information, please refer to the archived middle east / iraq / Global War on Terrorism Deniers threads.

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]It's just a dream, it will never happen, and neither will the "Right to bear arms" ever be undone, even though there are no British troops in Canada anymore, and the Commies are not waiting for an opportunity to jump across the pond only to be destroyed by the Great American Militia.

Guns serve no purpose to law-abiding citizens other than entertainment, law-enforcement and war, of which war is not applicable to the mainland US.

 You are all going to hate me for this and brand me a radical but I have to state this...

 The right to bare arms has nothing to do with hunting, entertainment or self defense. The whole idea is that it is a check against government.

 When I was in high school we had a holocaust survivor speak to my history class one year (I believe Junior year perhaps sophomore ).  When he was done telling his story there was a half hour allotted to ask him questions. I remember one student asked “why didn’t you fight back or resist?†his response was that the Nazis had instituted absolute gun control in Germany.  He said if he had a gun he would have gone on the run and killed Nazis rather than being interned in a concentration camp. My history teacher interrupted and said “but then you might have been killed and would not be alive todayâ€. The holocaust survivor then said maybe so but he would rather of had control over his own destiny instead of being at the mercy of the government and luck. He stated many times that it was only by luck that he survived the holocaust, there were many times he only survived by being one place back in a line for example.

 After hearing that and more from the man I decided from that point on that I would never support the prohibition of firearms from the citizenry. Never trust that your government will act and treat you fair and benignly if they have all the guns and you and your fellows do not.

 I know that’s some radical stuff I just said but I truly believe in it. Never for one instant believe that your government, no matter how fair and just it may be now, will not one day turn into a tyranny.

 To disarm a nation and put its citizenry at the full mercy of the government do to the acts of criminals is foolish.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]It's just a dream, it will never happen, and neither will the "Right to bear arms" ever be undone, even though there are no British troops in Canada anymore, and the Commies are not waiting for an opportunity to jump across the pond only to be destroyed by the Great American Militia.

Guns serve no purpose to law-abiding citizens other than entertainment, law-enforcement and war, of which war is not applicable to the mainland US.

You are all going to hate me for this and brand me a radical but I have to state this...

The right to bare arms has nothing to do with hunting, entertainment or self defense. The whole idea is that it is a check against government.

When I was in high school we had a holocaust survivor speak to my history class one year (I believe Junior year perhaps sophomore ). When he was done telling his story there was a half hour allotted to ask him questions. I remember one student asked “why didn’t you fight back or resist?†his response was that the Nazis had instituted absolute gun control in Germany. He said if he had a gun he would have gone on the run and killed Nazis rather than being interned in a concentration camp. My history teacher interrupted and said “but then you might have been killed and would not be alive todayâ€. The holocaust survivor then said maybe so but he would rather of had control over his own destiny instead of being at the mercy of the government and luck. He stated many times that it was only by luck that he survived the holocaust, there were many times he only survived by being one place back in a line for example.

After hearing that and more from the man I decided from that point on that I would never support the prohibition of firearms from the citizenry. Never trust that your government will act and treat you fair and benignly if they have all the guns and you and your fellows do not.

I know that’s some radical stuff I just said but I truly believe in it. Never for one instant believe that your government, no matter how fair and just it may be now, will not one day turn into a tyranny.

To disarm a nation and put its citizenry at the full mercy of the government do to the acts of criminals is foolish.

If I didn't trust my government, I would move out.

[kakagoegie 0]

I don't understand why they make such a big deal of this on CNN. Clearly the majority of the Americans want to have the right to carry firearms. This is fine, it's their decision. But why do they act all hyped when somebody shoots up a school, you know this can happen when one is allowed to buy a gun before he is allowed to drink a beer.

It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to carry handguns? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people!

[Journeyman 0]

It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to carry handguns? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people!

Quote[/b] ]If I didn't trust my government, I would move out.

The most sensible two statements on this debate so far!

This could be the reality check the US government needs! ... On the other hand no politician wants to loose their seat so it probably won't be!  

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]But why do they act all hyped when somebody shoots up a school, you know this can happen when one is allowed to buy a gun before he is allowed to drink a beer.

 The shooter was 23 the drinking age is 21 here. Most states you cannot own a pistol until you are 21, not sure about Virgina however.

Quote[/b] ]It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to carry handguns? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people!

Using your logic I could also say…

It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to drink alchohol? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people by driving drunk![/

 Driving drunk is not part of your privledge to drink and murder is not part of your right to bear arms.

 

Quote[/b] ]If I didn't trust my government, I would move out.

 This is my home I'm not a runner. My family lives here and I have ancestors who have died for this land. it's your right to run but it is not your right to expect others to simply "flee" because that's what your decision is. If every one through out history simply ran away, you my friend would have no land to leave to as the entire world would be under the control of tyrants.

[Journeyman 0]

@ Sputnik Monroe you are clearly defending a tradition to bear arms and I would probably do the same in your situation too! I would love to be able to go out and purchase a weapon here in the UK and carry it around with me when I go out shopping etc.! BUT I would also have to understand that every other Tom, Dick and Harry will be doing the same, and that not every Tom, Dick and Harry will be as mentally stable as myself!

By allowing freedom of weapons you are creating freedom of use!  

[Messiah 2]

It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to drink alchohol? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people by driving drunk![/

Driving drunk is not part of your privledge to drink and murder is not part of your right to bear arms.

amen

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

30 Round Maginzes and Fully Automatic in the USA, are illegal.

As for the idea of "ban all guns" "people shouldnt have guns".

Why don't you just demand all freedoms in our Country to be simply taken away? You do know there are people out here in the world that enjoy a traditional sport called "Hunting" ? Now I know there are Anti-Hunters out there and blah. I am a Hunter. My family is full of Hunters. We enjoy Deer Hunting during the legal months of the year that we are allowed. I've been brought up around firearms of many sorts all of my life and not one of us have ever even thought about any retarded things like this guy did at VT. Not everyone who owns a firearm "wants to kill somebody". The firearms don't have minds of their own. They don't just go off for no reason. There IS somebody pulling the trigger. If all guns should be banned, then so should Alcohol, which causes many drunk driving accidents around the world. My point is, just because some people commit crimes, that doesn't mean the "Right to Bear Arms" should be taken away.

You could always use a crossbow or something... Or a bow and arrow... people used it in the past for centuries... and they did the job... so don't tell me you need a gun to hunt... Or are you just not up to the challenge? It's a lot more silent too... and you can make your own ammo, alot more ecological! How about it?

[igor drukov 0]

WTF happened to the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment?

To want to go out shopping carrying a weapon is plain sick. All those self-righteous people lobbying to keep their "sacred right" to carry a gun and begging to be given a reason to shoot someone make this world a way shittier place than it should be.

US politicians should ban handguns and so-called assault weapons. It's thousands of lives uselessly flushed down the toilet every year.

[kakagoegie 0]

Quote[/b] ]But why do they act all hyped when somebody shoots up a school, you know this can happen when one is allowed to buy a gun before he is allowed to drink a beer.

The shooter was 23 the drinking age is 21 here. Most states you cannot own a pistol until you are 21, not sure about Virgina however.

Woops, always thought it was 18. Btw, how did those Columbine kids got their guns? Illegal, or did legislation change after the shooting?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to carry handguns? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people!

Using your logic I could also say…

It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to drink alchohol? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people by driving drunk!

Driving drunk is not part of your privledge to drink and murder is not part of your right to bear arms.

I do accept the fact that drunken people will kill other people sometimes. It might sound weird, but I've made a choice that I want alcohol to be allowed to drink. The result of this is the fact that I risk the change of being killed by a drunk driver. My country made a choice, they are willing to accept the fact that about 50 people get killed by drunk drivers each year, so the rest of the country can drink alcohol. If the USA wants to have the right to carry firearms, the country should also accept the fact that people get killed because of that decision. The question is: How many lives are you prepared to spend each year for your right to carry firearms?

[CameronMcDonald 146]

To disarm a nation and put its citizenry at the full mercy of the government do to the acts of criminals is foolish.

Alright, judging from this statement, Australia, New Zealand, England and the majority of the Western world is doomed to become totalitarian societies because we're not all toting guns. V For Vendetta here we come.

Pure and utter borscht. This is what the checks and balances of a democracy are for.

Australia had its own shooting nightmare a few years back when an unstable bloke by the name of Martin Bryant who managed to get his hands on an Armalite, a shotgun and a handgun. Following this he proceeded to kill upwards of 30 innocent civvies, our worst massacre. This precipitated the introduction by the Howard government of extremely strict gun laws, it is now very, very hard to own firearms. The result? There hasn't been a repeat of the Port Arthur massacre to date.

I agree totally when people say that this is a social problem. Sure, humans will be humans. This is a problem in every society known to man, an inherent trait. Just as humans are naturally competitive (thus dooming communism), you will always have the outsiders and the sociopathic who feel they have to take hostile action out on others.

The difference in the US is that these people have a far greater opportunity to get their hands on firearms. Weapons that kill with one twitch of a finger, and give no second chance to their victims. You can hooh hah until the sun implodes that this is a social problem, and that guns have nothing to do with it, but again I ask:

If this man couldn't gain access to firearms, would 30 people be dead?

Gun control, in Australia at least, has effectively removed this problem to date. In the US, these massacres are going to continue happening until someone realises that "the right to bear arms" is currently doing nothing more than accessorising murder.

It is allowing those few at the unstable fringe of society to fill body bags with ease.

I heard from a relative today that while driving interstate through Montana, every single roadside gas station he saw had a sign in the window with a variation on these words:  "Ice and guns here."

I thought it sad.

[baddo 0]

Well I think they would ban handguns at least if the yearly death toll caused by them would rapidly grow every year, despite of what some amendment in some very old paper is saying... which is even debated if the meaning is understood correctly. So yes it's also a question of how many people they allow to get killed before they do something about it.

Or... would it go as with Josif Stalin, if the death toll is ridiculously high it would then only be statistics? I don't think so...

[billybob2002 0]

If you don't know the American statistic for alcohol-related crash fatalities, don't try to compare it to American firearm fatalities. More people have died in alcohol-related crashes than by firearms for more than a decade. For example, in 1997, 16,711 individuals died in alcohol-related crashes compared to 10,369 individual killed by a person using an firearm. In 2005, 16,885 individuals died in alcohol-related crashes compared to 10,100 individual killed by a person using an firearm. Why?

Also, I like to use fallacies but lets not using them or it would become a bad habit to kick. It is for me. For example, post hoc ergo propter hoc is an fallacy.

I'm going to get bashed but what the hell. History has shown that just having a "democracy" isn't going to protect you.

Now, I understand why Ralphie is an wise man.

[fardwark 0]

History has shown that just having a "democracy" isn't going to protect you.

Having weapons doesn't protect you either, the only difference between people that have weapons and people who don't is what happens after someone decides to oppress them. If you want to talk about the second amendment type of weapon-ownership that is.

[billybob2002 0]

History has shown that just having a "democracy" isn't going to protect you.

Having weapons doesn't protect you either, the only difference between people that have weapons and people who don't is what happens after someone decides to oppress them. If you want to talk about the second amendment type of weapon-ownership that is.

I knew it! I don't want to go all hypothetical this early morning and I lack sleep. However, there is the existence of something called "fear." Fear can strike man down to his core.

I'm done with this thread due to the fear of the mods!

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Quote[/b] ]It's just a dream, it will never happen, and neither will the "Right to bear arms" ever be undone, even though there are no British troops in Canada anymore, and the Commies are not waiting for an opportunity to jump across the pond only to be destroyed by the Great American Militia.

Guns serve no purpose to law-abiding citizens other than entertainment, law-enforcement and war, of which war is not applicable to the mainland US.

 You are all going to hate me for this and brand me a radical but I have to state this...

 The right to bare arms has nothing to do with hunting, entertainment or self defense. The whole idea is that it is a check against government.

 When I was in high school we had a holocaust survivor speak to my history class one year (I believe Junior year perhaps sophomore ).  When he was done telling his story there was a half hour allotted to ask him questions. I remember one student asked “why didn’t you fight back or resist?†his response was that the Nazis had instituted absolute gun control in Germany.  He said if he had a gun he would have gone on the run and killed Nazis rather than being interned in a concentration camp. My history teacher interrupted and said “but then you might have been killed and would not be alive todayâ€. The holocaust survivor then said maybe so but he would rather of had control over his own destiny instead of being at the mercy of the government and luck. He stated many times that it was only by luck that he survived the holocaust, there were many times he only survived by being one place back in a line for example.

 After hearing that and more from the man I decided from that point on that I would never support the prohibition of firearms from the citizenry. Never trust that your government will act and treat you fair and benignly if they have all the guns and you and your fellows do not.

 I know that’s some radical stuff I just said but I truly believe in it. Never for one instant believe that your government, no matter how fair and just it may be now, will not one day turn into a tyranny.

 To disarm a nation and put its citizenry at the full mercy of the government do to the acts of criminals is foolish.

Oh gosh, not that again. And honestly Sputnik, I makes me throw up having to listen to that old NRA story once again. How often was this story being told in one of their sites?

Quote[/b] ]the Nazis had instituted absolute gun control in Germany

Thats incorrect. Actually the Nazis had losened the gun laws for the sake of "full civil war mobilisation". During the time of getthoisation older laws were in place. And besides, most jews had lost their entire house and business before even being able to think of their gun.

Actually I would have wanted to go more into debth here but honestly, I tackled this story so many billion times I grew tired of it. And I grew tired of discussing with people who are good in remembering dates and names, but seem to have problems to create a “feel†for the time they are talking about.

The entire idea of “self defending jews†is so full of misconceptions of the time and the context... it realy makes me angry. IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THE TIME BACK THEN??

Surprising to me is the fact that even the german Internet is full of that NRA spam. Why are they making sure all this bullshit is even posted in German (why that?).  Do they believe repeating and spreading the same old bullshit over and over again may convince people? Trust by Mass?

A german site already proofed that one of the self proclaimed "NRA holocaust survivors" gave false informations about the camp, indicating that he never actually was there. How impious is it to pretend being a holocaust survivor just to make a point?

And just a tiny sidenote.

The jews in Germany were to large percentage part of the ruling  intellectual elite, they were thinkers, artists, doctors, bankers, poets, proffessors, teachers and industrialists. But they definetly didnt have the potential to be what only americans could imagine: self-protecting Gun-Ho Nazi-killing jewish Cowboys.

Besides, in the early days of the Nazi Regime noone could have guessed what one day would happen to the jews. And when they realised it, they were already rounded up in Getthos. What followed was blood-work, starvation and reprisal. Did you ever look into the eyes of a jewish concentration/working camp survivor on a photograph? Do you realy believe this person would have had the strength and the will to fight? Bullshit, you could have given him the gun into his hands he wouldn’t have been able to fire it, neither physically nor mentally .

But sure, if a father would have had a gun he would have been running around "killing Nazis" instead of just trying to bring his family alive through the coming days. I mean they all knew from day one they would end up in a gas chamber right  ?

Maybe this man realy came to your class and told you this story. But I say he is a goddamn poser if this was his thesis. Why? because millions of books have been published telling the stories of survivors and draw a totally different picture.

My grandfather wasnt jewish but still the Nazis were after him during the late days of their regime (because he had a big mouth just like me). If I would have asked him "why didnt you fight them with your hunting rifle" he would have probably considered me to be a retard!

How fucking Naive can someone be to believe this utter bullshit. THIS abuse and rape of history realy is what DENIAL is about.

I realy dont fucking care about the laws you have in the US, it is your country and your decision. But dont dare to abuse the Holocaust for promoting your GUN-Fetish!

I am realy not amused and I believe real survivors arent either!

But back to the topic

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c45_1176890967

And NO, Sputnik Monroe and me get along well and I realy respect and like him. Dont get the wrong impression from my little rant here!

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Quote[/b] ]But why do they act all hyped when somebody shoots up a school, you know this can happen when one is allowed to buy a gun before he is allowed to drink a beer.

The shooter was 23 the drinking age is 21 here. Most states you cannot own a pistol until you are 21, not sure about Virgina however.

Woops, always thought it was 18. Btw, how did those Columbine kids got their guns? Illegal, or did legislation change after the shooting?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to carry handguns? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people!

Using your logic I could also say…

It's quite simple: Do you want to be able to drink alchohol? If you do, you must accept the fact that sometimes people use that right to kill other people by driving drunk!

Driving drunk is not part of your privledge to drink and murder is not part of your right to bear arms.

I do accept the fact that drunken people will kill other people sometimes. It might sound weird, but I've made a choice that I want alcohol to be allowed to drink. The result of this is the fact that I risk the change of being killed by a drunk driver. My country made a choice, they are willing to accept the fact that about 50 people get killed by drunk drivers each year, so the rest of the country can drink alcohol. If the USA wants to have the right to carry firearms, the country should also accept the fact that people get killed because of that decision. The question is: How many lives are you prepared to spend each year for your right to carry firearms?

In Virginia you can buy weapons as long as you are 18 of age, and have a clean record. That's all it takes.

No matter how you put it, I'd rather have it like here in Denmark. 15 years is the legal limit to drink. 18 years is for driving, and you never get to own weapons like those. Only hunting rifles allowed - if you pass the tests.

[+Sokar 0]

Everytime there's a gun-related killing in America, People jump outta their pants and get off on screaming... "Ban Guns! Civilians shouldn't have guns!"

I should start screaming, "Ban Alcohol!" Shit, I've lost 4 friends due to an Alcohol related car crash, and many more in High School were killed by it. You never hear about rednecks that enjoy hunting, committing these killings. It is always a student or a gang member that has depression or drugs involved that commit these acts. In my opinion, the people in the school that say they "saw the signs" should be suspended for not taking anything serious. "Counseling?" come on, a kid that wants to kill is not going to listen. If they actually did something about this incident, 33 innocent lives might just be alive today. Unfortunatly we can't change the past, but things like this can be prevented in the future. Who ever stated that it wasn't handled correctly, im in 100% agreement with you.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Mixing the gun issue with the alcohol issue - I cannot understand that. There are several studies revealing a beneficiary aspect for a person's health, of a very limited alcohol consuption. Yet I know no study that reveals any beneficiary aspect of the existance and usufruition of weapons. So throwing the alcohol issue in here is really not sensible. I mean, alcoholic beverages is something you drink, and people drink something (alcoholic or not) to survive - in the old times, sailing ships carried wine or other alcohol beverages because they were the only drinkable liquid sailors had available during the entire duration of a long trip. But weapons?!? Come on, get serious... you just can't throw the alcohol issue into this discussion... And no, I'm no alcoholic, I'm actually the guy that normally drives and I don't drink 1 drop of alcohol when I go out at night as driver - I've even spent New Years Eves without drinking 1 sip of champagne because I was the driver...