Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Paroxetine Samurai, Dec 14, 2012.
Yes, it has been proven sad to say. In countries that instituted draconian gun laws this has happened all the more so. Mind you anyone that wanted to get a gun and murder still does but over all other violent deaths go up drastically. There are a lot of government reports on this but here is a great video that covers it on suicides for one.
In fact the shooters in Columbine made a large bomb that they did not set off. The FBI stated had they it would have leveled the school killing about half the people there.
I guess I'm glad I don't live in one of those countries where guys fire their rifles up into their air during outdoor barbecues, weddings, or feast days.
Have we figured out the "well regulated militia" bit yet?
yep. carry on.
And there are countries where people throw acid in the faces of others, light their wives on fire and chop them up with machetes too. I am glad I don't live there but the point is all the same. There are crazy people every place you go and mass murder.
Yes things could be worse. Sometimes I take comfort in that. But it's not my favorite, uh, take comfort thingy.
Wikipedia has a great section on the militia bit.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Close up image of the Second Amendment
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4
Grebe- just asking so please don't take offense- but recently you appear to be trolling. Mod trolling? Yes?
Why do you think he is trolling, he is asking questions and sharing his point of view!
It's weird, but though I have 3 years (I think) of knowing Grebe (posting-wise) the sudden change of (call it what you will...tone. frequency. idk) made me ask the question. Something is different and maybe its irl stuff- again idk. So...just asking. No harm intended, fwiw- I've liked G.
And "tone" isn't in the scilon sense. G you have just been more vocal (alot) in recent days.
In some other threads I'm failing to express my thoughts in a manner that makes sense to others. But that's not the same as trolling.
Aww grebe, you have a stalker! They know you are upset and want to give you a back rub.
I'm not actually upset though. Just chit-chattin' with strange people on the webs for fun.
Oops I mean strangers, not strange people.
the only normal people are people you don't know very well
They did have a large number of explosives.
But all the deaths and injuries were caused by gunshot.
I don't know where you yanks are getting your figures from, the different posts on here are not consistent about figures from gun crime in uk. I live in the uk, and I can tell you point blank (pun intended) that gun crime hasn't gone out of control since the ban on guns. You are talking outta your ass. There has been a slight rise in gun offences recently where gangs are trying to emulate LA gangs and are trying to "pop a cap" in each others asses, and there has been an influx of east European gangs who like guns, but on the whole, the general public hasn't been affected by this.
You are trying to paint the picture that the majority of uk residents owned guns and then we had them taken away, this was never the case, before the ban guns were extremely rare, collectors and gun fanatics only, anyone who owned a gun in suburbia was looked upon as a concern, a bit of a nutta! Uk society has no place for the gun, our mindset is different from the US. Guns in the UK before the ban, and after, have nothing to do with protection, they were about ego, or lack of one.
Stop listening to the NRA publicity machine, the UK has no issue with guns, it's very nice not having them around, maybe you should try it!
Oh lord! What bullshit, and to prove it here's a great video on car accidents lol
And for decades we all thought that smoking was safe!
Just because it's written in stone does not make it right, or impossible to change. You are clinging to an idea from a different time, times change, society changes, some "laws" need to change to reflect this.
The argument is"if guns are gone, people will kill themselves in other ways but the number of suicides is fixed." The number of mass killing is not fixed, if you control guns, it lowers the number of mass killings. Saying that bombs will be used instead- it just isn't true in spite of "dox" that are rlly "opinions". Its more difficult to make a bomb than it is to take an assault weapon to the nearest school/mall. There will still be bombs.
There will still be murder, there have always been murders, but the number of traveling companions the suicide takes with him are fewer.
So in addition to the kids they killed with guns, there would have been more due to the bomb. Not a good argument for guns.
Anonymous - Message To The Westboro Baptist Church (Sandy Hook)
I am well aware that in the UK gun ownership is and has been rare. What we are talking about is that the UK made self defense illegal. That is the argument, not that gun laws took away your guns, but that stupid laws took away your right to defend yourself.
Nothing more evil than the people with all the guns telling you not to defend yourself, not only telling you not to, but that you will go to jail if you use force against the criminal.
Worse. Law. Ever.
Even I don't want to argue with people this stupid.^
New York Post, New York Daily News Slam NRA's Wayne LaPierre
The Huffington Post | By Melissa Jeltsen
The New York Post and the New York Daily News tore into the National Rifle Association on Saturday for the gun lobby's bizarre press conference held in response to the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre.
On Friday, the gun lobby broke its silence to comment on the Connecticut school shooting, which took the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults. In a widely-panned public appearance, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre blamed gun violence on everything from video games to the media, and advocated placing an armed officer in every school in America.
Responses ranged from disgust to disbelief.
The conservative New York Post, which called LaPierre a "gun nut" and "NRA loon" on its Saturday cover, may be taking its cues from its owner, Rupert Murdoch. In the wake of the shooting, Murdoch spoke out about the need for stricter gun control.
"Terrible news today," he tweeted. "When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy."
Saturday's New York Daily News cover called LaPierre the "craziest man on earth." The tabloid also published a pro-gun control cover last Tuesday.
See the covers below, via The Newseum:
Ricky Gervais @rickygervais
When I was a kid we regularly sent teachers mad. Some cried, some resigned, some smashed the place up. I'm so glad they didn't have guns.
It is the perfect argument, it makes it clear that trying to take away peoples guns will do absolutely nothing to stop mass murder except make it easier by trying to disarm people from fighting back.
You clearly have little reguards for them, you think someone being mad = death becuase they have a gun? LOL
Mrs. Betty Bowers @BettyBowers
The NRA's solution to drunk driving? MORE AIRBAGS!
Bloomberg owned rags selling fear and lies, go figure LOL
Yours, take cars from all drivers because some drive drunk.
You are the stupid one
The home owner had a legally owned shotgun. The four intruders broke into his home after midnight. The homeowner fires one round, wounding two burglars. So the police arrest EVERYBODY, including the homeowners wife, who never touched the shotgun… Folks, thank God you do not live in the UK…
This is far to often the case in the UK
You are posting from a position of ignorance.
Cars are both registered and licensed. Their use is highly regulated and controlled, with safety laws applying both to their construction and their use on the road. They are so useful that people agree to take on the heavy cost in lives each year, but at least the government does what it can to mitigate the losses. And yet the American Automobile Association does not fund lobbyists to get the government to eliminate registration, or to make it easier to get a license, or to make seat-belts optional, or to eliminate traffic lights and speed limits.
Is it any wonder that the NRA look like a bunch of loonies when they are so shrill about any laws that put any restrictions on machines that are specially designed to kill as many people as possible as effectively and efficiently as possible and serve no other useful purpose?
The government wants to do the equivalent of requiring a driver's license and a registration, and putting in a speed limit and some traffic lights, and the NRA compares this with instituting some kind of draconian dictatorship? Oh please.
Why has no-one suggested putting robot guard droids in schools yet?
It's been tested,but didn't work out very well.
Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!