School shooting "phenomenom"

[Rustman 0]

Quote[/b] ]With all of the attacks on our freedom and sovereignty and outright murder by our own government can you make an argument that we should not be able to defend ourselves aganst our own government that is trying to take away all freedom?

Good point.

So why don´t you do it actually ? I guess you can´t get much more betrayal as for now. I wondered about this pro-gun argument for a while now. You have the situation where your government is comitting one illegal act after the other but noone of the "freedom defenders with guns" picks up their arms ? Funny.

Astonishingly the NRA and the majority of gun owners are with Bush as he´s a cowboy, ya know ?  

I´m happy that not every undereducated sociopath ine urope runs around with a gun. If you want to have it that way, fine.

I guess victims of shooting in the US are somewhat victims of evolution then.

I just wonder why you still have police over there ? Summed up from the posts here they are not capable, they are unreliable and they have no legal obligation to help you. Get rid of them and hand guns to everyone. Not that you already have weekly frantics running around with a gun in busses, schools, Walmart, governmental buildings and other public areas, no, some of them have a blast using them on civillians aswell.

You´re right, I don´t envy you, nor do I want to be part of such hypocracy society, where size still seems to matter  

eh...uninspired. 5/10

[sputnik monroe 102]

Gun owner = insane.

Gun owner = scum.

Gun owner = the worst humanity has to offer.

 Gun owners are out to kill you. Watch your back... there is one now!

[jman 0]

Gun owner = insane.

Gun owner = scum.

Gun owner = the worst humanity has to offer.

 Gun owners are out to kill you. Watch your back... there is one now!

If that is sarcasm then LOL. If not I really cant reply without getting banned.

[Rustman 0]

Gun owner = insane.

Gun owner = scum.

Gun owner = the worst humanity has to offer.

 Gun owners are out to kill you. Watch your back... there is one now!

lol Gun owner = Me.

Better watch you 'cause i'm comin for yall! Yippy Ki-yay MF.

[baddo 0]

No one here has said civilians should not have any guns as far as I know. Stop riding on that, it makes you look like you can't read or understand what others are saying.

You are going crazy over-protective about your right to bear arms because some people just want to apply some common sense to what kind of guns civilians should be allowed to have and to whom guns are given. You are going crazy for nothing. As I said earlier in this thread, your constitution can be kept unmodified. From what I have read about the "amendment" which gives citizens of USA the right to bear arms (in a disputable form put let's put that aside now) does not state what kind of "arms" it is talking about. So it leaves quite a lot of room for common sense. Question and the problem is, do the people of the USA want to apply common sense or not?

Do you need automatic weapons? No you don't. Do you need semi-automatic weapons? No you don't. Do you need to give a small baby a gun permit? No, you don't need to do that!

[Rustman 0]

No one here has said civilians should not have any guns as far as I know. Stop riding on that, it makes you look like you can't read or understand what others are saying.

You are going crazy over-protective about your right to bear arms because some people just want to apply some common sense to what kind of guns civilians should be allowed to have and to whom guns are given. You are going crazy for nothing. As I said earlier in this thread, your constitution can be kept unmodified. From what I have read about the "amendment" which gives citizens of USA the right to bear arms (in a disputable form put let's put that aside now) does not state what kind of "arms" it is talking about. So it leaves quite a lot of room for common sense. Question and the problem is, do the people of the USA want to apply common sense or not?

Do you need automatic weapons? No you don't. Do you need semi-automatic weapons? No you don't. Do you need to give a small baby a gun permit? No, you don't need to do that!

The counter argument is you are absolutely right, the second amendment does not specify what arms...therefore you could to interpret "arms" in the sense of being a broad catagory covering all types of personal weapon systems....by that interpretation congress holds no authority to ban ANY weapon.

You are right, however, I don't NEED and automatic or semi firearms...but "NEED" is completely irrelevant. It's whether or not I have a RIGHT to own one...which currently I do and that is a right I would like to keep, thank you.

[jman 0]

No one here has said civilians should not have any guns as far as I know. Stop riding on that, it makes you look like you can't read or understand what others are saying.

You are going crazy over-protective about your right to bear arms because some people just want to apply some common sense to what kind of guns civilians should be allowed to have and to whom guns are given. You are going crazy for nothing. As I said earlier in this thread, your constitution can be kept unmodified. From what I have read about the "amendment" which gives citizens of USA the right to bear arms (in a disputable form put let's put that aside now) does not state what kind of "arms" it is talking about. So it leaves quite a lot of room for common sense. Question and the problem is, do the people of the USA want to apply common sense or not?

Do you need automatic weapons? No you don't. Do you need semi-automatic weapons? No you don't. Do you need to give a small baby a gun permit? No, you don't need to do that!

You are right about what weapons it allows. Private citizens used to have their own battleships a LONG time ago. Thing is with the way people are today you just cant trust everyone with heavy weapons, which is bad for the responsible person who would only use it for fun or to defend is country from invading armies.(which isnt too likely to happen). Of course you shouldnt be alowed to have nukes or chemical weapons.(you can buy all you need at the supermarket anyway) I could make the argument for needing automatic weapons for dealing with hoards of murderous mobs looting everthing they can take, like in katrina's aftermath. Although in that situation its your own fault for living someplace below sea level thats inhabited by a lot of un savory people. But for the most part full auto is just a way for rich people to have fun. As anything besides a rental is uber expensive. Semi would be more effective in defending your property in a disaster. Lets just hope I dont find out first hand. Well I guess I should apolgise to you guys, so sorry. I didnt mean to offened anyone. Rustman makes a good point about need. You dont need anything exept a handmade blade, cloths, and a spear. Thats all you need to live. everthing else is comfort and wants. Yes that is taking it to the extreem, but deciding things based on need is never good.

[-Snafu- 77]

As for civilians not properly identifing there targets, and the sterotype of the gun owner who is nevous and waiting to shoot someone over nothing or at some shadow in the dark of his house.  Thats just silly.  You dont need special training to tell that the guy thats trying to rob some helpless woman at knife point is a badguy, or the the guy in you kids bedroom with a skimask at 1am is there for a bad reason.  Dispite what our news tells us, and probably(correct me if Im wrong) yours too is that you just cant kill someone for looking at you the wrong way just because you have a carry permit.  You have to have a GOOD reason.  You have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death to you or others.  The only other reason is to stop a felony in progress, at least here in Florida, I cant speak for other places.

Like I said guns are not a solution to crime. Do you think that person is mugging that woman for fun? Of course not. solve the causes of crime ie poverty, unemployment etc. Only then will the crime level drop.

Also I didn't even know that a nervous person with a gun is stereotypical, I didn't even indicate such a thing. An over-confident person with a gun is also not good.

Like Baddo said there's nothing wrong with applying common sense to the issue. For example one of my mates is a champion Clay Pigeon shooter, he's on the Scotland squad, so he owns a shotgun for that. That's fine. It's locked away in the local shooting club anyway. What's strange is that the Americans here can't seem to come to a compromise on the issue. After all compromise is at the roots of your country and is something you pride yourselves in.

[Rustman 0]

As for civilians not properly identifing there targets, and the sterotype of the gun owner who is nevous and waiting to shoot someone over nothing or at some shadow in the dark of his house.  Thats just silly.  You dont need special training to tell that the guy thats trying to rob some helpless woman at knife point is a badguy, or the the guy in you kids bedroom with a skimask at 1am is there for a bad reason.  Dispite what our news tells us, and probably(correct me if Im wrong) yours too is that you just cant kill someone for looking at you the wrong way just because you have a carry permit.  You have to have a GOOD reason.  You have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death to you or others.  The only other reason is to stop a felony in progress, at least here in Florida, I cant speak for other places.

Like I said guns are not a solution to crime. Do you think that person is mugging that woman for fun? Of course not. solve the causes of crime ie poverty, unemployment etc. Only then will the crime level drop.

Also I didn't even know that a nervous person with a gun is stereotypical, I didn't even indicate such a thing. An over-confident person with a gun is also not good.

Like Baddo said there's nothing wrong with applying common sense to the issue. For example one of my mates is a champion Clay Pigeon shooter, he's on the Scotland squad, so he owns a shotgun for that. That's fine. It's locked away in the local shooting club anyway. What's strange is that the Americans here can't seem to come to a compromise on the issue. After all compromise is at the roots of your country and is something you pride yourselves in.

It's not an either/or argument. By all means, solve poverty, save the homeless, etc...I still have the right to carry a gun to protect myself. You are right..guns in the broad sence is not gonna stop crime...just like taking away guns is not gonna stop crime...what it does do is allow me to not be a victim while I'm working at saving the world from poverty. Me..that's why I carry...Me and my loved ones. I don't carry a gun to change the world.

The shooting club thing is apples and oranges...the second amendment was not written with shooting clubs and competitions in mind...it wasn't written with hunting in mind...the second amendment was writtin with one thing in mind..the defense of self, family, and country. Nothing else. Hard to do that with your guns locked away in a shooting club.

[-Snafu- 77]

As for civilians not properly identifing there targets, and the sterotype of the gun owner who is nevous and waiting to shoot someone over nothing or at some shadow in the dark of his house.  Thats just silly.  You dont need special training to tell that the guy thats trying to rob some helpless woman at knife point is a badguy, or the the guy in you kids bedroom with a skimask at 1am is there for a bad reason.  Dispite what our news tells us, and probably(correct me if Im wrong) yours too is that you just cant kill someone for looking at you the wrong way just because you have a carry permit.  You have to have a GOOD reason.  You have to be in fear of great bodily harm or death to you or others.  The only other reason is to stop a felony in progress, at least here in Florida, I cant speak for other places.

Like I said guns are not a solution to crime. Do you think that person is mugging that woman for fun? Of course not. solve the causes of crime ie poverty, unemployment etc. Only then will the crime level drop.

Also I didn't even know that a nervous person with a gun is stereotypical, I didn't even indicate such a thing. An over-confident person with a gun is also not good.

Like Baddo said there's nothing wrong with applying common sense to the issue. For example one of my mates is a champion Clay Pigeon shooter, he's on the Scotland squad, so he owns a shotgun for that. That's fine. It's locked away in the local shooting club anyway. What's strange is that the Americans here can't seem to come to a compromise on the issue. After all compromise is at the roots of your country and is something you pride yourselves in.

It's not an either/or argument.  By all means, solve poverty, save the homeless, etc...I still have the right to carry a gun to protect myself.  You are right..guns in the broad sence is not gonna stop crime...just like taking away guns is not gonna stop crime...what it does do is allow me to not be a victim while I'm working at saving the world from poverty.  Me..that's why I carry...Me and my loved ones.  I don't carry a gun to change the world.

The shooting club thing is apples and oranges...the second amendment was not written with shooting clubs and competitions in mind...it wasn't written with hunting in mind...the second amendment was writtin with one thing in mind..the defense of self, family, and country.  Nothing else.  Hard to do that with your guns locked away in a shooting club.

Well there's no need for that here but the loaction your in you apparently need it. Funny I thought you said you just liked to excercise that right. Anyway my mate uses the shotgun for sport not for protection of himself and his family and his country. That's what the Police and Army are for.

But what's the point in this were never going to agree on anything. You have stated your points and I have stated mine. I'm not going to reply if you do as I blatantly can not be fecking arsed with this anymore.

[Rustman 0]

Well, I'm gonna respond anyway.  Simple fact is that I do enjoy practicing my rights...I do...I really enjoy shooting.  But that is besides the point.  It's also a reality that chances are I won't ever NEED my gun for anything...however, should the situation arise where I do have to rely on it for survival, it makes me happy that I can carry it.  Look, I love our police to death.  I really do...and they do good work.  But simple fact is that they don't prevent crime.  Yours don't prevent crime in your country either.  Even cops admit this.  They are awesome at investigating and catching criminals, but it begs the question..why are they criminals and why are the police trying to lock them up?  Because there has already been a victim, that's why.  The damage has already been done.  Unless your police can magically teleport themselves to the exact point of the crime at the exact moment it happens, yours are just as limited by response time as ours are.  The best you can hope is to A) survive the encounter and, doing that, B) give the cops the best info you can to catch the guy.  That is not crime prevention...that is crime investigation.  Two totally different things.  I carry to prevent my self from becoming a victim in the first place.  You don't?  Great..more power to ya!  *Thumbs up*  Just because you make that choice doesn't mean that I have to also.

[jman 0]

Common sense is opinion. Ones idea of common sense might be that only the government can have firearms and civilians shouldent have any gun for any reason. Others might be that civilians should only have hunting and manually operated or single shot sporting firearms and no weapon for defense. Others might think that being able to carry a handgun for defense and AR-15 in the bedroom are common sense. The fact is that guns are not the cause of any problem. Kennesaw Georga proves, at least on a small scale( 21,675 people as of the 2000 census) that just becasue everyone has a gun deosnt mean the streets will flow red with blood from wild west stlye shoot outs and people using exessive force.(like shooting someone for calling the a homo or something like that). It also proves that they are a crime deterent. Will that work on a larger scale? I couldent tell you. Maybe it would balence out if every criminal knew that his or her victim was most likely armed, or maybe it wouldent.

Although it is the job of the military to protect the country, it definatly helps when they are backed up by their civilain population.