School shooting "phenomenom"

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

"The reason why police carry guns is exactly because criminals may carry guns. Otherwise cops wouldn't need guns either."

Don't be so one-sided all about "Guns being the problem". If cops don't carry guns, people are going to have MANY options no matter what, to get a hold of anything and use it as a weapon. Remember the knife? That thing with a blade and handle? That can be fairly deadly, in some cases worse then a gun. Remember the car? Remember the ball bat? Ban all things that can be used as weapons if you ppl wanna be so hard on guns. Guns aren't the only thing that kill people. If somebody wants to take another human life, it doesn't matter what they use, they will do it no matter what they have.

Can you dodge a knife strike? Probably. Can you block a baseball strike? Possibly. Can you evade a car? Perhaps. Especially when you can see them coming. But can you evade a bullet when someone shoots you? That takes alot of luck. Sure, if it's your time to die you could probably die from a lightning strike if you step out of your home on a sunday morning to get the weekend newspaper. But it's a question of limiting options and making mass-murdering more difficult, instead of easier. And, as Dallas put it, the ease of accessing weapons that can kill alot of people quickly is a factor.

@ Dallas: Good post, and in general I would have to agree with you, except that IMHO less guns is better, although one could, unfortunately, relate less and less the lack of gun availability in Europe to less deaths...

[Jack-UK 0]

wow big thread.

My personal opineon:

The US Constitution gives them the right to 'bear arms', that wont be ammended easily. American's are used to having guns to 'defend their families'.

I live in the UK (as you may have guessed ) and possession of a firearm is illegal here. Gun crime is much much lower than in the US.

I've heard a lot of talk from people that if guns are banned, there will become a 'black market'. Ofcourse there will be a black market, but it also means that the majority of guns will be off the streets and its then down to the police to crack down on the black market.

Guns are not necessary for self defence, and if they are outlawed theres a MUCH reduced chance that you will ever come face to face with a gun if you're a civvie.

The 'ideal' solution would be to ammend the constitution and outlaw guns. But realistically, that isnt going to happen soon. One of the advantages of the UK uncodified constitution is that we can ammend it as the world changes and develops. The US constitution is becoming out of date, and it will only get worse... The problem is, even if there was an attempt to ammend the constitution it wont happen, because you will be infriging the rights of americans as it is written in their constiution.

In a country where guns are legal, such terrible events such as the school massacres are inevitable, and without really radical change, they will unfortunately not be uncommon.

[InqWiper 0]

Quote[/b] ]Don't be so one-sided all about "Guns being the problem". If cops don't carry guns, people are going to have MANY options no matter what, to get a hold of anything and use it as a weapon. Remember the knife? That thing with a blade and handle? That can be fairly deadly, in some cases worse then a gun. Remember the car? Remember the ball bat? Ban all things that can be used as weapons if you ppl wanna be so hard on guns. Guns aren't the only thing that kill people.   If somebody wants to take another human life, it doesn't matter what they use, they will do it no matter what they have.

I cant remember anyone in this thread saying that stricter gun laws will make sure noone is killed so I really dont understand who you are trying to argue with here. People simply feel that stricter gun laws will result in fewer victims. If you take a knife to your school and start killing people you have no chance of killing as many has you have with a couple of pistols.

If someone is getting bullied at school he is more likely to seek revenge if he has access to a firearm. If you attack someone with a knife there is a risk he will overpower you and you wont even kill one of the people you want to see dead. If you have a pistol it is very easy to kill someone and you can easily kill several people. I belive owning a pistol makes a bullied person more likely to kill someone because it is so much easier.

Ofcourse the gun laws are not the cause behind killings like this but I am certain they are more common and more extreme because of them.

I dont understand what people are thinking when they walk into a mall and just starts shooting random people but I do understand why some people take a gun to school and start killing people who fucked with them. I honestly dont feel a bit sorry for the people who get killed for bullying people. Unfortunately it seems to me that people who didnt have anything to do with it get shot aswell.

People who say this is just a crazy person who cant handle his emotions and think it was an impulsive act arent very insightful. People do not become like this guy over night and he had probaly been thinking about killing people for a long time before this happend.

The reason behind this is that people fucked too much with this guy and not enough people cared about it. If you tease an animal and get bitten noone is surprised but if someone is bullied over several years and finally kills people everyone wonders how this could happen. Aslong as people (like people always do) look for the easy answer and say this was just some crazy guy or blame computer games these things will continue to happen. If you dont want your kid to be killed in a school shooting maybe you should raise your kid to realise that you shouldnt bully people. If your kid bullies someone and gets killed for it I have absolutely no sympathy for you. Your kid is your responsability and your kid contributed to the killers life being probably worse than yours is now. I have sympathy for the killer aslong as he doesnt kill any innocent people and I have sympathy for any innocent involved. I have no sympathy for bullies or the parents of killed bullies.

I think gunfree zones might be a bad idea if it is so easy to get a gun inside. If you want to kill as many people as possible just go to a gunfree zone and you will meet no opposition. If everyone in the school is armed it is much harder to kill as many people as this guy did but if you make it really hard to get access to weapons its even better. You can reason back and forth whether its worth it or not to let the whole school be armed or whether or not the positive sides of everyone being able to carry a gun outweights negative things like this. The fact remains that school massacres is most likely more common in a society where guns are everywhere than in a society where they are not. The best solution to things like this would be if people started caring more about other people but since that is not very likely to happen maybe people will not treat people as badly in interest of theire own personal safety (which I think is partially what the killers are thinking).

[igor drukov 0]

Well apparently pro-guns:

<ul>[*] are proud to have fewer murders than in Russia - such a fantastic example to the rest of the world;

[*] claim that alcohol kills more than guns - roughly the same number of deaths (well double that number if you count gun-related suicides), but how many more people drink than own a piece and shoot?

[*] have become brainwashed to the extent that they believe that household gun ownership exists as a protection from governmental infringement - in overt contradiction to the 2nd Amendment itself, which allowed regulated gun ownership for the "security of a free state" FFS! Besides, the only way to use a gun against government intrusion is to shoot your computer and your credit card, not at the "black choppers"... so just do it and return the gun!

[*] justify gun ownership by the fact that murders will exist anyway, so it's best to be able to defend yourself - regardless of the higher probabilities of attempted and successful murders it allows;

[*] know human nature extremely well and recommend the preemptive neutralisation of potentially dangerous freaks - regardless of... everything: the difficulty of accurate diagnoses in mental diseases or even on human beings, the impracticability of diagnosing everyone regularly (unless you want to usher in a dystopian all-seing government of sorts), the bases of common sense and justice (punishing someone for something they haven't done, are you crazy?).

I wish this were one of those huge unbridgeable gaps between American and Euro thinking, but I know Americans are torn over this issue. To prove it's only all about "socio-economic and cultural reasons....not the availability of a firearms" as billybob2002 said (sounds like nothing but unprovable jargon to me), a fair crack of the whip should be given to total gun prohibition for ten years, and we'd see from there. Otherwise I'm afraid it's nothing but dishonest fallacy (to be fair, on either side).

Let me just quote this week's leader in The Economist (bold letters by me):

Quote[/b] ]Cho Seung-hui does not stand for America's students, any more than Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did when they slaughtered 13 of their fellow high-school students at Columbine in 1999. Such disturbed people exist in every society. The difference, as everyone knows but no one in authority was saying this week, is that in America such individuals have easy access to weapons of terrible destructive power. Cho killed his victims with two guns, one of them a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol, a rapid-fire weapon that is available only to police in virtually every other country, but which can legally be bought over the counter in thousands of gun-shops in America. There are estimated to be some 240m guns in America, considerably more than there are adults, and around a third of them are handguns, easy to conceal and use. Had powerful guns not been available to him, the deranged Cho would have killed fewer people, and perhaps none at all.

But the tragedies of Virginia Tech—and Columbine, and Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania, where five girls were shot at an Amish school last year—are not the full measure of the curse of guns. More bleakly terrible is America's annual harvest of gun deaths that are not mass murders: some 14,000 routine killings committed in 2005 with guns, to which must be added 16,000 suicides by firearm and 650 fatal accidents (2004 figures). Many of these, especially the suicides, would have happened anyway: but guns make them much easier. <span style='color:red'>Since the killing of John Kennedy in 1963, more Americans have died by American gunfire than perished on foreign battlefields in the whole of the 20th century.</span> In 2005 more than 400 children were murdered with guns.

Live by the gun, die by the gun.

Regards,

Igor.

P.S.: Absolutely nothing personal, it's the ideas I'm fighting.

[+Sokar 0]

I wouldn't want to be the one to go around to all of the houses in our country, confiscating our firearms. The outcome would make VT look like nothing, trust me. Those of us that are hunters and enjoy our right to deer hunt, small game hunt, and target shoot, won't take it very lightly. Don't ever think a gun ban will stop killing. Do you really think people are going to just give up all their weapons freely and NOT hide any? if you think that, you're just completely retarded. i know for a fact I wouldn't just freely give up all of mine, Why? what if someone were to rob my place/ I want protection nearby, I don't rely on law enforcement that much, and I sure as hell will be damned if somebody is going to harm my family, they will get a bullet first. if you don't think I'm close to correct, ask any redneck (rednecks are also the ones who formed America and kicked the brits out)

[Dallas 9]

I think high school massacres are predominately an american phenomenon because of 2nd amendment. 2nd amendment is an important part of american identity and history, but I think it's fair to accept it also has some disadvantages. The VA shooting was a chain of events, one of the links in that chain were easy acces to legal/illegal weapons, but it would be a mistake to only focus on one small part of the chain.

It's utopia to think you can disarm americans. I think the 2nd Amendment is a deep part of american culture that it's impossible to revoke this historic right. I also think it's something europeans have a hard time understanding. I don't think the average american is packing heat in the mall or wants to carry in schools, I certainly find the mere thought of guns in schools very far from my reality. I could easier accept armed trained campus guards, but students should be in an enviroment where books and parties occupies their minds.

Trying to stop school massacres seems like a long term project, where many factors and issues should be taken into consideration. I'd like to see some kind of social safety net, more focus on the loners, on bullying, depressions and new safety precautions for school shooting, just like you have fire drills. The first thing we have to accpet is guns are here to stay. Second we'd have to discuss how schools can minimize the threat of shootings, through social safety nets, school/study counseling, precautions, drills, guards and maybe also architecture(?). Then we have to fund the whole shebang.

[billybob2002 0]

No, it was directed at sputnik - which is why I quoted him, and not you. Secondly - I never said stricker gun-control would solve the problem solely. Infact, I said quite the opposit on p. 2:

Yet, you also mention that all those countries introduced a strict form of gun control laws which had a reduction in shooting on the street. Therefore, I take it that those type of laws are the solution. Yeah, this thread is mumbo jumbo now!

Oh, I got the Russian number from RIA Novosti's website.

I wish this were one of those huge unbridgeable gaps between American and Euro thinking, but I know Americans are torn over this issue. To prove it's only all about "socio-economic and cultural reasons....not the availability of a firearms" as billybob2002 said (sounds like nothing but unprovable jargon to me), a fair crack of the whip should be given to total gun prohibition for ten years, and we'd see from there. Otherwise I'm afraid it's nothing but dishonest fallacy (to be fair, on either side).

I didn't say that I'm proud we have fewer murders than Russia. I was making an argument about simply having strict control doesn't gives you low number/rate of murders using Russia as evidence.

It is not unprovable jargon. For example, here in America, gun ownership in the black "community" is lower than the white "community" but an disproportionate of urban blacks are victimized by other black individuals. Half of the murders committed each year are by black individuals, who mostly use firearms to commit the deed, but blacks make up only 13% of the total population. Most of those murders are intraracial.

Why is that an disproportionate number of black individuals commit murders or crimes in general? The answer isn't because of their color.

There are many confounding factors. You can't just say 1 + 1 = 2 on this issue because it is wrong. I said "socio-economic and cultural reasons" because I was going for generalization.

@Dallas: Those last two paragraphs is what I have been saying but you typed in context of the thread's original intend.

[The Frenchman 0]

Well I can honestly say I wasn't expecting this:

Quote[/b] ]God sent a crazed madman to shoot at your children, and he didn't miss. Get this straight -- God sent this South Korean madman to kill 31 of your children at Virginia Tech. Was God asleep while this took place? Was He on vacation? Of course not. He willed this to happen to punish you for assailing His servants.

Those were the words posted to the Westboro Baptist Church’s main website, www.godhatesamerica.com. First of all I want to point out that it was 32 people killed, not 31. It is important to get the numbers right, especially when it is a tragedy of this magnitude. Every person murdered should matter, even to these rotten bastards.

Westboro promised to “preach†at the victims funerals. Normally a group of Vietnam Vets who also happen to be bikers known as the Patriot Guard Riders would show up and push the foul pests around until they left. They have, however, stated on their website, www.patriotguard.org, that they would only make themselves available to those victims who were involved in the ROTC military program.

With no large bikers to stop them this time, the religious crackpots will no doubt be marching into Blacksburg spewing their hate to an already grieving community in the next few days. Make no mistake about it, they are looking to victimize those who are already innocent victims yet again. It shows no class and is nothing but a cheap publicity stunt to get themselves some unearned media coverage.

Another editor who did not want to be named (Dockwats) made an interesting comment after reading of their intentions. He said “Some people shouldn’t get to have the constitution.†He was right. Though I completely believe in free speech, the laws in place were not written to protect people like this. The friends and families of the students lost should not be subjected to such an atrocity while forced to bury a loved one who was already needlessly murdered. Something needs to be done to stop this from happening. Free speech laws should not supersede a person’s inalienable right to a peaceful burial.

Some of the comments made by the church were threatening to us all. They mentioned that we “do not know horror – yet.†They crossed many lines with this last statement. In the old days they would have been taken out back and quietly shot. Too bad we civilized the western states. I hear tar and feathering is quite hilarious to watch.

So, what can we do? You could always give them a ring on the old tele and let them know of your displeasure, as is your right as an American. The number is public knowledge. 785-273-0325 ( Thanks Dex! ). Now, if you do decide to call all on your own without any coercion from me, please be polite, just as they are at their protests.

Be sure to tell them I said hello.

Link

You may remember these wackos from them picketing the soldier's funerals.

[igor drukov 0]

I wouldn't want to be the one to go around to all of the houses in our country, confiscating our firearms. The outcome would make VT look like nothing, trust me. Those of us that are hunters and enjoy our right to deer hunt, small game hunt, and target shoot, won't take it very lightly. Don't ever think a gun ban will stop killing. Do you really think people are going to just give up all their weapons freely and NOT hide any? if you think that, you're just completely retarded. i know for a fact I wouldn't just freely give up all of mine, Why? what if someone were to rob my place/ I want protection nearby, I don't rely on law enforcement that much, and I sure as hell will be damned if somebody is going to harm my family, they will get a bullet first.

Cool down, mister. Nobody said slapping a blanket prohibition on guns would stop killing. Nobody really cares if thousands of rednecks from backwater shoot at targets in their backyards, secretly hoping and praying that someone might mess around with them. It's not even that unfortunate that those rednecks, with all their pent up hate and arrogant ignorance, were helped out by the Indians and the French back then.

After all, if you're not a deer or a black man, a Mexican, a Brit, a cheese-eating surrender monkey, a Pawnee, a Catholic, a Jew, a Communist or a liberal living in the woods, you're OK.

No, the real issue is handguns in urban areas. That's why I think, as I said on bottom of page 6, that handguns and assault weapons should be banned. But that does not necessarily imply having the "government" break into your houses to seize your arsenal from under your mattress. Tough punishments if ever caught with some could be efficient disincentives. Let's not forget that this has already been done with assault weapons from 1994 to 2004.

And that would leave our beloved rednecks with their rifles - as the rest of the world's hunters.

As Dallas said, the 2nd Amendment won't be written off (not that I think it'd be a good thing if it were), so the "game" is to work around it... and enforce it properly! Many are those who contend the first part of the sentence is consistently overlooked by gun-freaks. What sort of legitimate activity does one plan to do with an AK-47 or Magnum 357 in one's flat?

@billiybob2002

I get your point. I agree that in social sciences, the causes of a given effect are more often than not concealed to the naked eye. Admittedly, I'm not really toeing that deontological line as it's pretty obvious to me that more guns imply more deaths by gunfire.

But what you're saying works both ways: if you can't prove the high death-toll is gun-related, you can't say it's due to "socio-economic reasons" either: to know for sure, some parameters must be adjusted to see how it evolves from there, and I suggest * cough cough * banning handguns (not that it matters, but I'm even ready to compromise on assault weapons so our precious rednecks can M240 stray does wandering past their frontdoors).

Anyway, live by the gun, die by the gun.

Regards,

Igor.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

I wonder why all these pro-gun debaters inhere always read our posts, multiply our points by a hundred, and then defend themself against these newly extremely rational (and illusive) points supposedly made by us?

It's getting tiredsome, really.

As people already pointed out (but you pro-gun types seem to ignore) several times - noone believes that strict gun control will solve all problems in the universe, but it can soften some of the symptoms as the one we sadly saw in Virgina.

Another point - strict gun control doesn't equal gun-ban. In Europe it is allowed to have hunting rifles and use them in the hunting season - in the forest! To aqquire one, you have to take both theory and practical firearm and animal recognission tests, though.

Please do not multitude small content of my posts, and the disregard the rest. It makes me sound like a hipocryt, which I do not feel I am (but who am I to judge that, anyway?).

In Europe we just simply cannot see why you would want to take a firearm with you when shopping, learning, walking, driving etc.

I know there is a huge gap between our societies, but sometimes I get surprised that we call ourself part of the same western world.

[Journeyman 0]

Well I'm just off shopping with the wife. Living here in England I'm just glad I have one less decision to make before I leave ... do I bring my Colt M1911 or my Glock 22?    I can’t even bring my hunting knife as this is also illegal to carry in public. Therefore my decision is made easy … I go unarmed!  

And you know what? ... That's the way I want it!  

[Dallas 9]

Well I'm just off shopping with the wife. Living here in England I'm just glad I have one less decision to make before I leave ... do I bring my Colt M1911 or my Glock 22?    I can’t even bring my hunting knife as this is also illegal to carry in public. Therefore my decision is made easy … I go unarmed!  

And you know what? ... That's the way I want it!  

Shopping with the wife, I'd bring a gun... to my head. I hope for your sake she's not shopping for shoes.

[Curatalo 0]

more then anything.....

im prety sure this aint the forum for talking about this...

[billybob2002 0]

I get your point. I agree that in social sciences, the causes of a given effect are more often than not concealed to the naked eye. Admittedly, I'm not really toeing that deontological line as it's pretty obvious to me that more guns imply more deaths by gunfire.

But what you're saying works both ways: if you can't prove the high death-toll is gun-related, you can't say it's due to "socio-economic reasons" either: to know for sure, some parameters must be adjusted to see how it evolves from there, and I suggest * cough cough * banning handguns (not that it matters, but I'm even ready to compromise on assault weapons so our precious rednecks can M240 stray does wandering past their frontdoors).

You can't really say ban handguns and lets go from there. There can be variables that could influence the test. For example, Washington DC passed an law in 1976 that virtually banned the possession of handguns. In the 1990s, the number of murders started to decrease in DC but the number of murders nationwide was dropping too. Why was that? Washington DC firearm ban is unique. Was DC just following the trend? Did the population decrease in DC contribute to the reduction of murders? Etc. Etc.

As people already pointed out (but you pro-gun types seem to ignore) several times - noone believes that strict gun control will solve all problems in the universe, but it can soften some of the symptoms as the one we sadly saw in Virgina.

I'm more of fix the problem at the root type of guy on this issue than lets apply a bandage and hope everything will be alright.

In Europe we just simply cannot see why you would want to take a firearm with you when shopping, learning, walking, driving etc.

Good, you understand. This is something that you wouldn't truly understand. However, most Americans don't carry to begin with.

[Journeyman 0]

In Europe we just simply cannot see why you would want to take a firearm with you when shopping, learning, walking, driving etc.

Good, you understand. This is something that you wouldn't truly understand. However, most Americans don't carry to begin with.

Then most Americans aren't going to complain about stricter gun laws! Only those that are obsessed with carrying guns outside of shooting ranges.

No, the real problem is one of vested interests in gun manufacturers and suppliers. These are the people (and their shareholders) that would be affected the most in the advent of new gun legislation, and no one wants that do they?  

[billybob2002 0]

In Europe we just simply cannot see why you would want to take a firearm with you when shopping, learning, walking, driving etc.

Good, you understand. This is something that you wouldn't truly understand. However, most Americans don't carry to begin with.

Then most Americans aren't going to complain about stricter gun laws! Only those that are obsessed with carrying guns outside of shooting ranges.

No, the real problem is one of vested interests in gun manufacturers and suppliers. These are the people (and their shareholders) that would be affected the most in the advent of new gun legislation, and no one wants that do they?

Now, I didn't say that. However, loaded ballot questions like this: "For the health and safety of children and the entire community, shall the State of Illinois enact a comprehensive ban on the manufacture, sale, delivery and possession of military-style assault weapons and .50 caliber rifles?" could influence the public.

Yes, that was an real ballot question!

[+Sokar 0]

InqWipe, I feel sorry for the victims families, I feel sorry for those who lost their friends, due to this idiot. this guy was a fuckin nutcase, throughout all of his school years he was very weird. if you can honestly justify his killing then... I don';t think many people would feel sorry for you if you were one of those 33. I surely wouldn't feel remorse one bit. Kids in School can be cruel, That is quite obvious.. but they aren't the only reasons he wanted to kill. He simply hated certain people. But that didnt give him a right to kill anybody. I was picked on for a few years when i was much younger, and i had ppl that i hated. Even though i have all acess to many firearms of different kinds in my house, i would have never even thought of taking one anyplace and taking another human life. The kid was wacked. That is all there is to it. As for the victim's, I'm sorry for them, and my condolences are with each and every one of their loved ones.

[Dallas 9]

I think I'd like to post my conclusion now. I see alot of unintentional sniping going back and forth across the atlantic and between the gun lovers and the gun haters. I'd like to try to state what I concider facts in the small world called my mind:

#1 It's impossible to completely avoid school shootings like VA Tech when it's so easy to access firearms legally or illegally.

#2 2nd Amendment is an institusion and a corner stone in American identity, culture and history that cannot be removed.

I think this thread can go on as long as it has to, but how about we stop discussing extremes and try to find a middle road. Maybe an experiment where we somehow change sides in the argument. How about the gun haters come up with an idea on how guns in some way can be allowed on campus and how about the gun lovers think up how you prevent legally owned firearms end up in the hands of criminels and school shootings.

Lets stop trying to disect the opposion's motivation merely based on our own limited knowledge and assumptions. Some like guns more than others. Let's not blow this out of proportions, check the steriotypical rhetorics at the door and start discussing a possible sollution that is based on reality.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

i think theres going to be alot more about the recenet shootings. (as in the gunmans past). I think he was obviously bullied, and thats being kept quiet still. Not sure why i think this, just watching his vidio makes me feel theres more than just "he was unstable".

[baddo 0]

Dallas. Middle road has already been found, just look at the many European nations that allow people to hunt with firearms, after they have gone through appropriate tests, and that restrict possession of firearms that are clearly not appropriate for hunting (semi-autom. etc). Also a nation-wide registry of firearms is held, so we have, at some level, some kind of possibility to know who owns which legally-acquired firearm.

If U.S. would adopt such similar practices then this would be true:

- The rights from the 2nd Amendment would not have been taken away nor modified. And notice that, for simplicity's sake, we now ignore the disputed talk in the amendment about a "militia", which can not mean every citizen of U.S.

- Availability of the firearms that clearly do not fit into hunting would be drastically limited.

- The semi-automatic and automatic firearms would not be allowed for civilians throughout the whole country.

The 2nd amendment can be kept unmodified. As I see it, it does not say what kind of firearms you are allowed to have. I think many U.S. citizens who argue against stricter gun control do not see this fact at all and thus put up a fight over a non-issue. They have no case if we allow hunting rifles and take other weapons away, they still have the right as expressed in the 2nd amendment. Or else, show me the text from the U.S. constitution where it says what kind of weapons U.S. citizens are allowed to have.

Also. Many people in this thread seem to have read from our posts something we did not write into them; we do not ask for all guns to be banned, we just ask common sense to be applied in the U.S. too (that is already been done elsewhere).

Best Regards,

Baddo.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Surely Americans understand that we now live in a different time than when the ammendments were written - and that they can be subject to change.

Baddo I agree 100% but the second ammendment would simply be there for the sake of tradition - which I sadly think the Americans isn't ready for.

[Dallas 9]

Surely Europens understand you don't wave a magic wand and erase 200 years of history and transform US in Europe by snapping your fingers.

Baddo suggesting to cut and paste Europe's weapon laws and traditions isn't the middleroad. That's your road. I'm talking about reasonable and realistic suggestions.

[wex-q 0]

Well, perhaps if you wouldn't get a rifle when opening a bankaccount, and buying ammo at Walmart, no idiots would rampage?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Surely Europens understand you don't wave a magic wand and erase 200 years of history and transform US in Europe by snapping your fingers.

Baddo suggesting to cut and paste Europe's weapon laws and traditions isn't the middleroad. That's your road. I'm talking about reasonable and realistic suggestions.

Dallas response was that having the right to own a hunting rifle is the middleroad between total gun-ban and the gun rampage you have in the US and many other third world countries.

Anything more than that is insane - so in that case, no! We will not find a middle road between sanity and insanity. I just think the europeans doesn't allow official complete insanity

[sputnik monroe 102]

Quote[/b] ]Cool down, mister. Nobody said slapping a blanket prohibition on guns would stop killing. Nobody really cares if thousands of rednecks from backwater shoot at targets in their backyards, secretly hoping and praying that someone might mess around with them. It's not even that unfortunate that those rednecks, with all their pent up hate and arrogant ignorance, were helped out by the Indians and the French back then.

After all, if you're not a deer or a black man, a Mexican, a Brit, a cheese-eating surrender monkey, a Pawnee, a Catholic, a Jew, a Communist or a liberal living in the woods, you're OK.

 Every time I hear the word "red" followed by the word "neck" I just want to puke. I'm so tired of this stupid F'ing stereo type. "If you own a gun then you are a Jew hating, racist, xenophobic, inbred sack of shit."  Personally I don't own a gun but I know a lot of people who do, not a single one of them is any of the things you believe them to be, they are not racist they are not inbred they are not psychotic and they are not murderers. So fuck off end of discussion.

 I hate to cuss like that as I feel it usually weakens my case but what does it matter. To all of you I'm just a so called "gun lover" and thus an inbred racist piece of hillybilly trash anyway.

 The solution to all these gun related problems is to just enforce the god damn laws we already have. Most of the people out there who commit crimes with guns usually have a record a mile long and should have been in jail. Too bad our law system thinks it's better to slap them on the wrist over and over until they finally kill people.

My country locks up people for marijauna possesion or writing bad checks but they see fit to let violent criminals walk free for some god damn reason. Talk about misguided judgement.

Oh well let's just punish the law abiding, and while we are at it lets label them as gap toothed ,retard, paranoids while we ae at it.