PDA

View Full Version : Gun debate



Red
22 Oct 2007, 09:22am
I went shooting after the CS match on Saturday:

Shooting an HK USP .45 tactical

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8020/n5580182942349084589ub6.jpg

Red
22 Oct 2007, 01:45pm
I have gotten Festively plump, thank you falcon.

It's harder to keep your weight down when you're TPSing all day. (also having a girlfriend doesn't make me care as much about staying as trim)

That USP is my friend's. I only have a 22 winchester and a 16ga mossberg shotty.

contempt
22 Oct 2007, 02:02pm
No offense, but what do you need all those stupid guns for? Rough neighborhood? Power? :rolleyes:

contempt (against guns)

Repeat
22 Oct 2007, 02:15pm
No offense, but what do you need all those stupid guns for? Rough neighborhood? Power? :rolleyes:

contempt (against guns)


Fun? :D

Red
22 Oct 2007, 04:06pm
No offense, but what do you need all those stupid guns for? Rough neighborhood? Power? :rolleyes:

contempt (against guns)

Because we can, and as Repeat said, FUN.

edit: and guns aren't stupid. Gangbangers who kill people for shits and giggle are.

LitKey
22 Oct 2007, 07:58pm
No offense, but what do you need all those stupid guns for? Rough neighborhood? Power? :rolleyes:

contempt (against guns)

1. Home defense, as cops take FOREVER to respond to crimes.

2. Hunting.

3. Socializing, as Red did/does.

4. Family heirloom.

5. Simply fun.

LitKey (for guns)

Jesstilence
22 Oct 2007, 08:07pm
No offense, but what do you need all those stupid guns for? Rough neighborhood? Power? :rolleyes:

contempt (against guns)

For shooting people against guns.

Jesstilence (for using guns against people against guns)

Oak
23 Oct 2007, 05:06am
1. Home defense, as cops take FOREVER to respond to crimes.

2. Hunting.

3. Socializing, as Red did/does.

4. Family heirloom.

5. Simply fun.

LitKey (for guns)


For shooting people against guns.

Jesstilence (for using guns against people against guns)

I think guns are a rather impersonal and cowardly way of hurting someone else. Call me old fashioned, but if you can't defend yourself with your bare hands, are paranoid enough to think you need them to defend yourself, or just have some sort of gun-nut mentality, you need to be weeded out of the collective gene pool.

Yes, marksmanship is, even in my opinion, a valid sport. I'm more referring to people who have them for reasons of personal weakness and physical inadequacy. Or control and power issues, like most cops.

LitKey
23 Oct 2007, 08:32am
I think guns are a rather impersonal and cowardly way of hurting someone else. Call me old fashioned, but if you can't defend yourself with your bare hands, are paranoid enough to think you need them to defend yourself, or just have some sort of gun-nut mentality, you need to be weeded out of the collective gene pool.

Yes, marksmanship is, even in my opinion, a valid sport. I'm more referring to people who have them for reasons of personal weakness and physical inadequacy. Or control and power issues, like most cops.

Yes, indeed, defend yourself with your bare hands against a robber with a 12-gauge shotgun aimed at your chest. That's an intelligent solution.

Red
23 Oct 2007, 09:23am
I think guns are a rather impersonal and cowardly way of hurting someone else. Call me old fashioned, but if you can't defend yourself with your bare hands, are paranoid enough to think you need them to defend yourself, or just have some sort of gun-nut mentality, you need to be weeded out of the collective gene pool.

Yes, marksmanship is, even in my opinion, a valid sport. I'm more referring to people who have them for reasons of personal weakness and physical inadequacy. Or control and power issues, like most cops.

lol

Paladin
23 Oct 2007, 09:37am
Yes, indeed, defend yourself with your bare hands against a robber with a 12-gauge shotgun aimed at your chest. That's an intelligent solution.

Agreed with you Litkey. Oak there will be certain situations where using a gun is unavoidable. If you have a mugger/robber/murderer who are aiming at you with a gun, its unavoidable to have to use a gun on them, otherwise theres a high possibility of you being wounded or fatally injured. Albeit there will be occasions where it can be avoided though, though its mostly for the people that are experienced in hand to hand and know how to disarm a person of his weapon, and those are usually police officers/people versed in martial arts.

Red
23 Oct 2007, 09:47am
Modern wars without guns would be rather comical, don't you think? xD

I hear Benny Hill music, rofl.

Jack_Sparow
23 Oct 2007, 09:51am
i like my guns and u can pry them from my cold dead hands.
(and yes I am a gay guy that loves shooting guns and loves guns in general so dont mess with me :)

Oak
23 Oct 2007, 11:40am
Yes, indeed, defend yourself with your bare hands against a robber with a 12-gauge shotgun aimed at your chest. That's an intelligent solution.

I don't live in the slums. Or in a country with a high crime rate or loose gun laws. Owning or using a gun is a personal choice, and speaks volumes about that persons character. Cute analogy though, even if you missed my point.




Agreed with you Litkey. Oak there will be certain situations where using a gun is unavoidable. If you have a mugger/robber/murderer who are aiming at you with a gun, its unavoidable to have to use a gun on them, otherwise theres a high possibility of you being wounded or fatally injured. Albeit there will be occasions where it can be avoided though, though its mostly for the people that are experienced in hand to hand and know how to disarm a person of his weapon, and those are usually police officers/people versed in martial arts.

Unavoidable if you put yourself in a situation where someone will have a gun pointed at you. I can understand the fear people in certain poor areas or just generally in the USA have, but even so, it is a personal choice. I'm fully aware that the vast majority of people today live in constant fear and self doubt, and guns are a way of regaining a little bit of control, but the mob mentality of how everyone gets a gun simply to defend themselves from other people with guns just generates more to be paranoid about.





Apparently this is an emotionally charged issue for some of you, so let me clarify that my intent was not to insult or attack you, just give my truthful opinion. I'm not a realistic person, morals and honor are concepts that mean more to me than anything else, but usually conflict with the collective modern day thought patterns.

It is unimaginable that someone would posses enough cowardice to aim a gun at someone who is unarmed, but if both people have guns, I'm fine with one of them being shot and killed, regardless of if they are facing each other or not. Those who live by the sword die by it too, and rightly so.

Omega
23 Oct 2007, 03:48pm
In the military you're trained particularly on that situation; for instance, one of the instructor sergeants at the platoon has been in a situation where someone was pointing a weapon at him whilst in Iraq, he had no weapon equipped himself -- He didn't reach down, pull out a .355 magnum and shoot them like in games at all, he'd be shot by the time he had it in his hands. Instead, he didn't make any movement, he stood there, and he kept eye contact. In most situations that would work. And, hey, he's around the tell the tale.

For instance, one of Ghandi's teachings, I think it is, where if you're in a situation where someone wants to injure you, and you stand there, without any resistance, and let them, most of the time they'll back down.

The example's even more so for a more common situation, for instance, an armed robbery, because the person with the weapon has no reason to shoot/attack you unless you pose a threat; whereas in a war zone, I suppose it's incomparisonable, but you get the idea.

a very interesting observation.

btw oak, you know any martial arts and things of that sort? I know paladin here is good with the sword and I've taken Shorin-Ryu karate for the past 5 years (brown belt, currently)

jeN
23 Oct 2007, 05:52pm
yawnn~

Jesstilence
23 Oct 2007, 08:03pm
Can we all please just go back to talking about my penis already?

Oak
23 Oct 2007, 10:53pm
Unavoidable if you put yourself into that situation? Are you completely serious?

Step out this perfect little bubble you apparently live in and realise that no one has control over the actions of others. Bad things happen to people everyday, but that doesn't make it their own fault.

No, I don't promote guns or care for them; but your arguments are just ridiculous. Completely bias. Enjoy living in your bubble where nothing wrong ever happens and the only opinion that matters is your own.

Well to someone who hasn't been exposed to more than one place in the world, I can see how that makes sense. I do not live in a bubble, and never meant to insinuate that there isn't a small chance someone will randomly pull out a gun and attack you. But that chance is very tiny to begin with, and you limit it even more by how you interact with people and the areas you live/visit. I wish you had taken time to read a little more carefully, you're responding to things I never wrote. I also never claimed that I wasn't biased, honest opinions always are.....that much was obvious I assumed.

Slavic
23 Oct 2007, 10:54pm
Can we all please just go back to talking about my penis already?

It is very well rounded, but that is besides the point, I want to talk about guns :D

I would never own a gun in my life. They are absolutely evil, death dealing machines. That is their only purpose. Show your true character and not give into violence with more violence. Turn the other check. I would rather die by the barrel of a robber, then to harm a fellow brother. I can accept death willingly, but I do not believe my assalient can.

Slavic
23 Oct 2007, 10:56pm
Well to someone who hasn't been exposed to more than one place in the world, I can see how that makes sense. I do not live in a bubble, and never meant to insinuate that there isn't a small chance someone will randomly pull out a gun and attack you. But that chance is very tiny to begin with, and you limit it even more by how you interact with people and the areas you live/visit. I wish you had taken time to read a little more carefully, you're responding to things I never wrote. I also never claimed that I wasn't biased, honest opinions always are.....that much was obvious I assumed.

I forgot, Oak's posts don't count. Switz's don't have souls

Red
24 Oct 2007, 12:21am
and you limit it even more by how you interact with people and the areas you live/visit.


Assuming you have the money to live in the nicest parts of a city. Unfortunately most people live in Middle class neighborhoods where gangbangers live just a few miles away or less. You can live in a 500,000 dollar house by the lake (my case), yet just a kilometer down the road are new cheap subsidized housing projects with bluntly put, ghetto people and growing gangs in the area, like MS-13 etc who don't have the same respect for personal property that the rest of us do.

Now if I have millions and lived in a gated community I probably wouldn't feel the need for any personal firearms, but I don't, nor do most of us. I wouldn't immediately shoot someone with a firearm who entered my premises, rather the presence of one would be an immediate deterrent resulting in their expulsion from said household. The sound of the cocking of a shotgun is usually enough.

I don't have the nobility that Slavic does, I would rather killed than be killed, or at least kill if I'm going to die. I don't subscribe to the notion that violence will go away. Violence is human nature as much as our lust for sex, greed, love and lying are, and it always will be.

James
24 Oct 2007, 03:57am
Wow People, this is the "post pictures of yourselves" thread, not the "Hey guys let's argue over theoretical situations" thread!

Listen to the genious! Get back to topic NOW!!

Oak
24 Oct 2007, 10:35am
Assuming you have the money to live in the nicest parts of a city. Unfortunately most people live in Middle class neighborhoods where gangbangers live just a few miles away or less. You can live in a 500,000 dollar house by the lake (my case), yet just a kilometer down the road are new cheap subsidized housing projects with bluntly put, ghetto people and growing gangs in the area, like MS-13 etc who don't have the same respect for personal property that the rest of us do.

Now if I have millions and lived in a gated community I probably wouldn't feel the need for any personal firearms, but I don't, nor do most of us. I wouldn't immediately shoot someone with a firearm who entered my premises, rather the presence of one would be an immediate deterrent resulting in their expulsion from said household. The sound of the cocking of a shotgun is usually enough.

I don't have the nobility that Slavic does, I would rather killed than be killed, or at least kill if I'm going to die. I don't subscribe to the notion that violence will go away. Violence is human nature as much as our lust for sex, greed, love and lying are, and it always will be.

I don't disagree with the validity of that kind of thinking, if its a dangerous area, you are indeed most likely safer with a gun than without. But owning a gun makes you just as potentially dangerous as the so called gangsters roaming wild. Is a presumably sound minded non-violent individual with no gang affiliation or criminal record as likely to shoot and kill someone? No, but like Slavic wrote, guns serve one purpose only, to do serious harm to or kill other people. The main problem with your situation is that the government and people who enforce the laws do criminally little to clean up the largely unchecked malefactors, much less attempt to alter the social/political standards that allows room for them to exist.



I forgot, Oak's posts don't count. Switz's don't have souls

Lol. :D
You forget I was born and raised in the USA. I am, in fact, entitled to claim I have at least half a soul.......and better chocolate.


I'm not even going to respond to this, but just say that; you're an idiot and going on ignore. pzl8. Like I said, enjoy living in your fantasy world.

You don't need to be rude simply because you can't produce a coherent argument. Your misinterpretation of what I thought was a simply understandable set of my opinions that I offered without any vehemence or condescension is your failing, not mine. I only posted them to get a feel for what other peoples viewpoints on the subject were, not to incur childish and insulting replies from people who need a serious lesson in both basic English reading comprehension and manners. But thats to be expected, I suppose.



While I do believe things with strong conviction, my #1 rule is to never, ever, enforce my ideals or principles on other people, or expect them to think the same way I do. I just wanted a mature exchange of ideas, and a few people gave me just that. I never once asked anyone to change how they think, but too many falsely perceive the contrast to their own opinions as an attack on what they believe, which is a very limited and egotistical of thinking.

Red
24 Oct 2007, 11:36am
Listen to the genious! Get back to topic NOW!!

Genius

I'm going to have to revoke your spelling naztee privileges



The main problem with your situation is that the government and people who enforce the laws do criminally little to clean up the largely unchecked malefactors

That's a very big problem here too. They'd rather tackle the "problem" of speeding with loads of cops on the highways and new speed cameras on our street and ridiculously low speed limits rather than divert the funds towards fighting real criminal activity in our area.

Oak
24 Oct 2007, 11:46am
Genius

I'm going to have to revoke your spelling naztee privileges




That's a very big problem here too. They'd rather tackle the "problem" of speeding with loads of cops on the highways and new speed cameras on our street and ridiculously low speed limits rather than divert the funds towards fighting real criminal activity in our area.

I am a cynical person by nature, but to me the reason for that seems clear. Catching speeders is profitable and runs less risk of death/injury. Given the choice between going after packs of hardened criminals and giving some harmless surgeon in a Porsche a fine which helps meet a monthly quota, which is a normal cop (on a normal cop's salary) going to choose? The partial illusion of safety is also important, to make people feel like they are committed and involved, possibly even in control if you're naive enough.


This is fairly far off topic, but is still highly interesting (to me at least). I wonder if someone wouldn't mind moving the relevant posts in this conversation to the off topic section?

Repeat
24 Oct 2007, 12:19pm
Perhaps it's not gun laws we should have...but rather stupid people laws. No crazy/stupid/mean people = no gun violence. Eh...Eh?

Red
24 Oct 2007, 01:07pm
I know speeders are a major revenue source, but often times it's just overkill.

RapBert
24 Oct 2007, 01:22pm
Lol. :D
You forget I was born and raised in the USA. I am, in fact, entitled to claim I have at least half a soul.......and better chocolate.

lol you mean Toblerone. only you swiss guys can eat that shit xD why has switzerland an army ? you dont need it anyway :D

Omega
24 Oct 2007, 02:31pm
It is very well rounded, but that is besides the point, I want to talk about guns :D

I would never own a gun in my life. They are absolutely evil, death dealing machines. That is their only purpose. Show your true character and not give into violence with more violence. Turn the other check. I would rather die by the barrel of a robber, then to harm a fellow brother. I can accept death willingly, but I do not believe my assalient can.

again, as someone posted earlier, people own guns for the sake of LEISURE. Take me for example... I own a gun purely for enjoyment but would never in my life shoot at someone no matter how much I despise him or her, unless my life is at stake and there is no other way around it. Only then.

HankTheTank
24 Oct 2007, 04:29pm
im against guns :\

the only people that shuld be aloud to have an operating weapon are police officers and the R.C.M.P (yes their partially diffrent btw)

if you feel like going to the shooting range or somthing like that, they shuld make it so you can go to the police range and rent a gun... there is no need to have a gun in somones home

and you wouldnt need a gun to protect yourself... if there were no guns

if someone is coming at you with like.. i dont know ... some sort of blade for example... like oak said, use hand combat. no need to be a coward.

in fact, in canada their trying to outlaw hand guns. only if i could vote...

the only real problem would be the hunting aspect. but they could solve this by 1. haveing vigourious tests to prove that a. your not crasy b. your not planing to hurt anyone. and then 2. like cops you would have to file some sort of report evertime you shoot your weapon.

hank (compleaty against guns)

Red
24 Oct 2007, 04:31pm
Maybe they can vote on learning to spell properly and using the right form of the word they're/their/there and aloud/allowed and other homonyms in Canada?

Yes vote to get rid of the legal right to own handguns so that only criminals who don't give two shits about laws can posses them, brilliant.


Red (completely against illogical Utopian fallacies)

HankTheTank
24 Oct 2007, 04:42pm
:rolleyes: getting rid of them all together...

and its not trying to make a Utopian fallacies :\ its trying to help save alot of premature deaths >.>

p.s.... do i detect a hint of racisim >.> your basically saying canada is stupid/crazy :\

Red
24 Oct 2007, 05:52pm
Didn't realize Canadian was a race

LitKey
24 Oct 2007, 05:56pm
:rolleyes: getting rid of them all together...

and its not trying to make a Utopian fallacies :\ its trying to help save alot of premature deaths >.>

Even if you ban guns, criminals will ALWAYS be able to get their hands on them. You'd only be preventing civilians that buy guns for self-defense from criminals from buying them.


p.s.... do i detect a hint of racisim >.> your basically saying canada is stupid/crazy :\

^ lol.

HankTheTank
24 Oct 2007, 06:23pm
Didn't realize Canadian was a race

yep ^.^ just like american,french,etheopian,veitnamize,or austrialian :)
happy to clear that up for you :D

ps... if you coulda just explaind it like litkey there, it would have beena lot nicer

(i still stand by no guns tho :-o)

Slavic
24 Oct 2007, 09:34pm
Banning all guns is ridiculous. Pardon me as I go out to buy an 8-ball, but how long have drugs been banned, hmmm???

Its not guns themselves that has to be changed, but the morals and ethics surrounding them. We have to take the violence away from the guns, by having more people not use them. Lol, I'd hate to use this analogy, but its like the whole saying, being fearful from a terrorist attack means the terrorists win. If you resort to the violent use of guns or any sort of weapons, you are giving them more power.

If ones thing needs to be changed, is how we all look at life. It is very precious, are you willing to take someone else's away? Only you can change yourself. Well unless someone performs Meta-programing using shock tactics, but thats rare : D.

Vote Slavic for Dali Lama

Twistedimage4
24 Oct 2007, 09:40pm
Guns don't kill, people do. :fight:

contempt
25 Oct 2007, 02:15am
What have I caused ? :)


Banning all guns is ridiculous. Pardon me as I go out to buy an 8-ball, but how long have drugs been banned, hmmm???

Its not guns themselves that has to be changed, but the morals and ethics surrounding them. We have to take the violence away from the guns, by having more people not use them. Lol, I'd hate to use this analogy, but its like the whole saying, being fearful from a terrorist attack means the terrorists win. If you resort to the violent use of guns or any sort of weapons, you are giving them more power.

If ones thing needs to be changed, is how we all look at life. It is very precious, are you willing to take someone else's away? Only you can change yourself.

Very well-put, to the point, and my opinion.
@ Red: Owning a gun (shotgun, pistol, whatever) doesn't necessarily make you safer in a stickup. I seriously doubt you have your gun on you at all times and everywhere you go to change the odds in such a critical situation.

What exactly is the fun of firing a gun? I rather shoot some hoops for a workout and fun.

contempt

James
25 Oct 2007, 03:46am
Actually Hank does have some good points in his post, the police should be the only people who should carry guns. (pretty much like in our country, the police and army are the only forces allowed to carry guns)

I mean, if a civilian were to take the matter into his own hand, surely he would be risking his life even greater, as trying to confront the criminal with a weapon could mean that he himself would be shot, whereas, if he didn't have a gun, he would not be seen as a threat to the criminal, and there would be a very slim chance of any serious incidents.

James
25 Oct 2007, 03:55am
What I meant was the armed response units.

Slavic
25 Oct 2007, 08:34am
British police don't carry weapons, James.

Is British police an oxymoron???

Red
25 Oct 2007, 09:32am
Is British police an oxymoron???

Correct Stick > Gun


@contempt:

When I'm at home (in my room 99% of the time) I do have 2 weapons within reach at all times. I'm not as likely to get mugged when outside because I go to populated places and there are frankly just a lot of people around when I'm out. I don't walk alone in dark alleys so to speak. At night however when people are asleep in their homes is when most break-ins occur around here and when I have my babies within short reach.

If Maryland didn't have such liberal gun laws I would have a pistol on my persons at all times.

I've read articles about street robberies and gun crimes rising in the U.K. since they banned them. Weird how you ban something, yet it's illegal use increases.


"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

HankTheTank
25 Oct 2007, 04:08pm
i have seen (well not seen but herd about) alot of shootings and what not in very crouded places... (pardon my spelling but) take columbine for example, or the (pardon my spelling again) virgina tech one...

guns are not just pulled out walking down the street there are many MANY diffrent cases when attacks happen in couded places...

Red
25 Oct 2007, 06:33pm
i have seen (well not seen but herd about) alot of shootings and what not in very crouded places... (pardon my spelling but) take columbine for example, or the (pardon my spelling again) virgina tech one...

guns are not just pulled out walking down the street there are many MANY diffrent cases when attacks happen in couded places...

That's many?

And imagine if just one or two of the students at Virginia Tech were carrying firearms, they could have shot Cho instead of all of them being helpless while waiting for the cops. Yet another reason FOR being able to carry a firearm.


and it's "crowded".

Slavic
25 Oct 2007, 08:24pm
Hmmm, instead of one person committing a sinful crime, we can have two or three people. Sounds fantastic.

LitKey
25 Oct 2007, 09:37pm
Hmmm, instead of one person committing a sinful crime, we can have two or three people. Sounds fantastic.

Are you freaking kidding me? You're saying that if people had guns and killed Cho, saving many lives, would be a SINFUL CRIME? Wow.

contempt
26 Oct 2007, 03:32am
That's many?

And imagine if just one or two of the students at Virginia Tech were carrying firearms, they could have shot Cho instead of all of them being helpless while waiting for the cops. Yet another reason FOR being able to carry a firearm.
and it's "crowded".

That's a flawed, half-baked argumentation.

If 2 students of thousands of students (VA Tech: ~ 26,000) had carried firearms, that wouldn't have helped anything. Surely, without anyone having a gun, they were at Cho's mercy. If, on the other hand, everyone had had a gun at the time Cho was carrying out his sick plan, there might a been fewer fatalities or more, depending on the reaction of the students and their accuracy of firing their guns.

contempt

Red
26 Oct 2007, 09:28am
Slavic: Being a non-believer I have no problem committing this "Sinful" crime of self-defense.


That's a flawed, half-baked argumentation.

If 2 students of thousands of students (VA Tech: ~ 26,000) had carried firearms, that wouldn't have helped anything. Surely, without anyone having a gun, they were at Cho's mercy. If, on the other hand, everyone had had a gun at the time Cho was carrying out his sick plan, there might a been fewer fatalities or more, depending on the reaction of the students and their accuracy of firing their guns.


Quite frankly I think it's all of you and other people who are anti-gun that I find to have half-baked peacenik ideals.

contempt

I meant two students in THAT particular classroom, meaning throughout the school there would be many many more armed people. More people would not have died if other students could have defended themselves. It's not that hard to shoot a person 20 feet away from you. Who knows, maybe Cho would have stopped upon realization that other students could retaliate right then and there.

Why the hell would I say 2 students for the whole campus, that's just asinine.



Havok:

The Police wouldn't have simply shot them, once they killed Cho and laid down their firearms and came outside, the other students could corroborate the fact that Cho was the original shooter and the others acted in self-defense.

And what happened WAS preventable if as I said just a couple of students in that class had firearms. But if we're to take your stance and believe that none of us should be able to defend ourselves and instead wait for the calvary to arrive then yes, you're correct, it's not preventable. We should all just throw our hands up and accept death at the hands of others.

Jesus when the hell did the feminization of the media and castration of the public finally kick in?

Red
26 Oct 2007, 09:59am
If the whole of the campus had weapons, then how can you be assured none of them wanted to go on killing sprees, or would have helped him?

As Demonstrated by Cho, you don't have to have permission to carry guns to go on a shooting spree. But knowing that nobody else on campus can stop you from doing it is even worse.

As someone stated above it would be "mutually assured destruction" if other students had a gun, as opposed "just you guys being destroyed while I sit here and reload because none of you can do anything about it".


Simple question for you Havok or you other guys; If you were at Virginia Tech that day, and Cho walked into your classroom and pulled out a gun, would you want to be armed or unarmed?

Oak
26 Oct 2007, 10:05am
Well you're all avoiding the core issue there, which is WHY he did it. The Columbine kids and this guy were obvious social outcasts, but does being socially inept lead one to carry out mass murder? For being different these people were persecuted by other people to an extent that drove them right off the edge. Instead of applying a scapegoat ideology to the gunmen of these schools, do the harder thing and try to realize what malfunction within the social pecking order causes such hatred to develop and cause severe damage. The guy often spoke about committing the deed far prior to its actual occurrence, but simply because he was deemed an unimportant loser, he wasn't taken seriously.

The guns are simply an easily obtainable weapon that have little to do with the actual motive, however, had the laws been stricter and Cho hadn't obtained guns so easily, I highly doubt he would have gone on his little rampage. More guns means a higher percentage of shootings, period. If another student had a gun, and shot Cho, its still murder.

Applying the "fight fire with fire" analogy to gun control is not only counter-productive toward creating a safer environment, its just plain irrational, unless of course, propagating violence and mass paranoia is the goal intended. Looser gun laws also means more people capable of murder, like Cho, will have an easier path to bloodshed.

A person without a gun is not likely to shoot anyone else, so I'm missing the logic by increasing the attainability thereof. The best and only solution would simply be to develop stricter gun laws with much harsher enforcement, and slowly remove them from circulating withing the country, stop all manufacturing of them, and ban any and all domestic ownership/usage.

Unfortunately, that will never happen, the paranoid consumerist driven society of the USA and elsewhere are addicted to guns, to the point that there is no real solution for it anymore, removing the firearms industry would be impossible, much less the psychological dependency a regrettable majority of people have developed. So yes, let everyone own a firearm, and maybe the problem with take care of itself. Just remember how peaceful the lawless pioneering west USA was in its early days of growth, and with the advance in weapons technology we have now, I'm willing to wager the environment would surpass even the pacifistic serenity of former periods when everyone was entitled to carry a firearm.

Red
26 Oct 2007, 10:20am
My basic point is this: Regardless of you psychological analysis of the American masses, as you said banning guns is not possible nor will it ever happen.

As such I want to carry a firearm period, that's it. Maybe I'll buy a nice Swiss firearm like the Sig p229.

And we're going in circles now.

Slavic
26 Oct 2007, 10:26am
Well you're all avoiding the core issue there, which is WHY he did it. The Columbine kids and this guy were obvious social outcasts, but does being socially inept lead one to carry out mass murder? For being different these people were persecuted by other people to an extent that drove them right off the edge. Instead of applying a scapegoat ideology to the gunmen of these schools, do the harder thing and try to realize what malfunction within the social pecking order causes such hatred to develop and cause severe damage. The guy often spoke about committing the deed far prior to its actual occurrence, but simply because he was deemed an unimportant loser, he wasn't taken seriously.

The guns are simply an easily obtainable weapon that have little to do with the actual motive, however, had the laws been stricter and Cho hadn't obtained guns so easily, I highly doubt he would have gone on his little rampage. More guns means a higher percentage of shootings, period. If another student had a gun, and shot Cho, its still murder.

Applying the "fight fire with fire" analogy to gun control is not only counter-productive toward creating a safer environment, its just plain irrational, unless of course, propagating violence and mass paranoia is the goal intended. Looser gun laws also means more people capable of murder, like Cho, will have an easier path to bloodshed.

A person without a gun is not likely to shoot anyone else, so I'm missing the logic by increasing the attainability thereof. The best and only solution would simply be to develop stricter gun laws with much harsher enforcement, and slowly remove them from circulating withing the country, stop all manufacturing of them, and ban any and all domestic ownership/usage.

Unfortunately, that will never happen, the paranoid consumerist driven society of the USA and elsewhere are addicted to guns, to the point that there is no real solution for it anymore, removing the firearms industry would be impossible, much less the psychological dependency a regrettable majority of people have developed. So yes, let everyone own a firearm, and maybe the problem with take care of itself. Just remember how peaceful the lawless pioneering west USA was in its early days of growth, and with the advance in weapons technology we have now, I'm willing to wager the environment would surpass even the pacifistic serenity of former periods when everyone was entitled to carry a firearm.

I'll have what she is having.

I completely agree with you there Oak. And what is of this "Mutual Destruction" you are talking about. Are you mad, you'd rather have everyone strapped and guns a blazing. Think of all the normal, run-of-the-mill fights that go on in every school, social gathering, w/e. Now give these people guns, and I guarantee you you'd see a lot more bodies dropping.

"Hey lets give Iran nuclear warhead technology; you know, what the hell screw it, lets give the whole world nukes. That way we'd all be safer because of the Mutual Destruction theory applied."

Do you rely want to live in a world were everyone is armed?

Red
26 Oct 2007, 10:32am
I'll have what she is having.

I completely agree with you there Oak. And what is of this "Mutual Destruction" you are talking about. Are you mad, you'd rather have everyone strapped and guns a blazing. Think of all the normal, run-of-the-mill fights that go on in every school, social gathering, w/e. Now give these people guns, and I guarantee you you'd see a lot more bodies dropping.

"Hey lets give Iran nuclear warhead technology; you know, what the hell screw it, lets give the whole world nukes. That way we'd all be safer because of the Mutual Destruction theory applied."

Do you rely want to live in a world were everyone is armed?


Wow, we're talking about firearms in the USA. Not Nukes for the whole world, drawing such comparisons is just retarded and infantile. I said not EVERYBODY has to carry a weapon nor do they. As it is, most people can if they want to.

Slavic
26 Oct 2007, 12:51pm
Wow, we're talking about firearms in the USA. Not Nukes for the whole world, drawing such comparisons is just retarded and infantile. I said not EVERYBODY has to carry a weapon nor do they. As it is, most people can if they want to.

I was just making a comparison to the political realism thought that you seem to be employing. We are making if-then statements, of course not everyone is going to have guns. Why even debate if we can't come up with other ways to look at the currently reality.

But honestly gun control/gun related deaths/guns in general, don't really bother me. If these things are happening right now, then they are correct. For if they are incorrect, then the now is incorrect, and that leads to meta-physical flaws which is impossible. Guns will always be because they already are. If gun policy is meant to change, then it will change. There always has to be a balance.

May the Tao flow through you

Oak
26 Oct 2007, 12:59pm
Thanks for unlocking this, I was just highly entranced with the flow of ideas coming through from the myriad of people, many from different cultures and experiences than I know personally.

My goal wasn't to try to argue with anyone, but to compare and exchange ideas without discrediting or insulting anyone else (although I did). If I unintentionally insulted anyone, I am deeply sorry (unless it was intentional).

I've seen far more intricate and well thought out theories and solutions here, and to be honest, a higher level of intelligence than I thought possible on a forum for a Zombie Mod CS server. Go figure. :D

I think I've contributed all I can to this without repeating myself, so I'll just sit this one out and read the new posts (unless of course, something jumps out at me).

Thanks to everyone who entered the topic, and especially to Red, who was kind enough to move this off topic discussion from an inappropriate place to a real thread, and eventually unlock it so ideas could continue to be shared.

Red
26 Oct 2007, 02:17pm
Someone else moved it before I did. But yeah, I've said all I can say without turning towards the powers of flame.

Haggard
26 Oct 2007, 02:30pm
You two should have a old western shootout at high noon. You both can buy guns for the duel since they are as easy to buy as bubble gum. Then after one of you is dead yell out real loud "Guns dont kill people, I do." Ofcourse you cant shoot someone without a gun so maybe the gun had something to do with his death, who knows. What a great topic. :rolleyes:

Interesting find
"American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)"

Red
1 Nov 2007, 02:51pm
I <3 John Stossel. Straight from inmate's mouths, they fear armed potential victims more than cops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA