103 replies to this topic

[Uncle Sam]

Babe Ruth, on 20 January 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

You're looking for Paradise, and you ain't gonna find it.

There is no such thing as paradise on Earth, people really need to get their heads out of their ass and make due with what we got. His idea for paradise is hell for others.

Beckys_Mom, on 20 January 2013 - 08:02 PM, said:

Do you mean a place that has cracked down on gun laws and not many own guns ?

There are places like that... matter of fact, throughout history those places have the highest murder rates and death tolls. Hitler once said, to defeat a nation is to disarm the nation. Well something along those lines... he disarmed everyone and it made it easy for placing them place undesirables in concentration camps or killing them in gas chambers. If Europe's army is defeated, what is going to stop another nation from going in and killing off all the Europeans?

Edited by Uncle Sam, 20 January 2013 - 08:10 PM.

[freetoroam]

Uncle Sam, on 20 January 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Parents need to be taught how to keep their guns safe and out of the hands of children, but you got to look at this way. Somewhere there is a gun that is always out in case of a break-in, so not all guns are locked away in a safe. The proper thing to do is teach and educate children about guns, not shun them from the notion they exist. You are talking about peering into the private lives of individuals to see if they are mental stable, which is not very reliable in proper sense. What you are suggesting doesn't even educate or teach children about guns, it is not an solution at all, it is aimed at law abiding citizens in notion it will help the problem which it doesn't. America's culture is based around guns and always will be, because our freedom and rights.

So far, we do not know if the 2 adults killed were his parents. Like Adam Lanza, who shot his mother, the idea of parents teaching their children does not always turn out the right way. Some parents should just not have guns in the house full stop, especially when there is a chance that the danger will not be from an intruder, but from their own child.
many of these teenagers are not the full shilling and the parents already know that, not saying they would expect to get shot by them, but the parents should not keeping guns anywhere near them in the first place.

[AsteroidX]

Its also worth mentioning these types of incidents are not completely uncommon and do happen from time to time. Id imagine with the current state of affairs in America this one will be sensationalized on why we need to ban guns. I just ask why no fervor hatred over guns on the last 100+ times an almost exactly the same (minus specific details) incidents.

[questionmark]

freetoroam, on 20 January 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

So far, we do not know if the 2 adults killed were his parents. Like Adam Lanza, who shot his mother, the idea of parents teaching their children does not always turn out the right way. Some parents should just not have guns in the house full stop, especially when there is a chance that the danger will not be from an intruder, but from their own child.
many of these teenagers are not the full shilling and the parents already know that, not saying they would expect to get shot by them, but the parents should not keeping guns anywhere near them in the first place.

There is nothing wrong with having a gun, as long as anybody unstable or otherwise unable to to securely handle a weapon cannot easily access it.

[Uncle Sam]

freetoroam, on 20 January 2013 - 08:12 PM, said:

So far, we do not know if the 2 adults killed were his parents. Like Adam Lanza, who shot his mother, the idea of parents teaching their children does not always turn out the right way. Some parents should just not have guns in the house full stop, especially when there is a chance that the danger will not be from an intruder, but from their own child.
many of these teenagers are not the full shilling and the parents already know that, not saying they would expect to get shot by them, but the parents should not keeping guns anywhere near them in the first place.

No... they should be responsible and understand their children is a danger to himself or others. When they come to that conclusion, they should place their guns in guns safes or out of reach of them. Having an a child who is mental unstable shouldn't infringe on their right to own a gun. Even if the parents don't have a gun, they could get a gun from somewhere else. Now that just throws your logic out the window that taking guns away from parents who have a child with mental problems will stop this problem. It is much more complex than you think. Education and Help for Mental Unstable people will go along way, a step in the right direction.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 20 January 2013 - 08:21 PM.

[freetoroam]

questionmark, on 20 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with having a gun, as long as anybody unstable or otherwise unable to to securely handle a weapon cannot easily access it.

I agree. thats basically what i was saying about the parents of these children. Once they start teaching the child about the guns, the child then knows they are in the house, and many of those unstable teenagers will get access to them if they want...a lock without having the key is not going to stop them getting in somehow.

[AsteroidX]

Quote

There is nothing wrong with having a gun, as long as anybody unstable or otherwise unable to to securely handle a weapon cannot easily access it.

Im curious whos going to responsible for making this determination. The unstable part.

Edited by AsteroidX, 20 January 2013 - 08:23 PM.

[Uncle Sam]

freetoroam, on 20 January 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

I agree. thats basically what i was saying about the parents of these children. Once they start teaching the child about the guns, the child then knows they are in the house, and many of those unstable teenagers will get access to them if they want...a lock without having the key is not going to stop them getting in somehow.

Teaching children about guns isn't going to make them go on a rampage and shot everyone up, matter of fact, the opposite because they will understand what it is for. They know it is not a nerf toy that they could go around shooting at people and it won't harm them, they understand this is a action that could kill someone. Did you know 22 rounds are the most deadly because they bound around in the body, they just don't go through the body. Matter of fact, getting hit by a higher caliber round, you are more likely to live than being shot with a 22 rifle or pistol.

questionmark, on 20 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

There is nothing wrong with having a gun, as long as anybody unstable or otherwise unable to to securely handle a weapon cannot easily access it.

Reason most people don't properly secure their weapons is because they were not educated and taught otherwise, they are going off common sense which sometimes is flawed.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 20 January 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[freetoroam]

Uncle Sam, on 20 January 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

No... they should be responsible and understand their children is a danger to himself or others. When they come to that conclusion, they should place their guns in guns safes or out of reach of them. Having an a child who is mental unstable shouldn't infringe on their right to own a gun. Even if the parents don't have a gun, they could get a gun from somewhere else. Now that just throws your logic out the window that taking guns away from parents who have a child with mental problems will stop this problem. It is much more complex than you think. Education and Help for Mental Unstable people will go along way, a step in the right direction.

ofcourse they should, but we know it does not work that way all the time, hence the parents who get killed by their own children.
As for the rest, i have just basically answered that in the above post, but as  for getting the guns from elsewhere....of course they can, but it does not help when the parents have made it easier for them by having them in the house.

[AsteroidX]

I dont know about you but Im raising my child to be dangerous and smart. Look at this ****ed up country. Hes gonna know how to protect himself from the idiocy that rules it.

[Uncle Sam]

freetoroam, on 20 January 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

ofcourse they should, but we know it does not work that way all the time, hence the parents who get killed by their own children.
As for the rest, i have just basically answered that in the above post, but as  for getting the guns from elsewhere....of course they can, but it does not help when the parents have made it easier for them by having them in the house.

I got a question for you then, what happens if all guns in the United States is taken away from home owners who are responsible and lawful citizens? What then? We become much more vulnerable to break ins, murders, rapes, and homicides because criminals will get their guns one way or another, rather you like it or not. Most people own guns to protect their family from these types of criminals. There is nothing there to deter them, there is nothing there to stop them from committing these types of crimes. Death toll will be much larger than it is today. People are less likely to be killed by an gun than it is likely be killed in a car crash. Those who advocate guns to be taken away will change their minds real quick when the bullets start flying.

AsteroidX, on 20 January 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

I dont know about you but Im raising my child to be dangerous and smart. Look at this ****ed up country. Hes gonna know how to protect himself from the idiocy that rules it.

Teaching your child how to proper handle and understand a gun is one thing, but to actively try to make them into a deadly person is another thing. It is his or her choice how to use his knowledge, rather he wants to be a person who to be feared or a person who can be trusted to protect his family and others. Which one would you be proud of?

Edited by Uncle Sam, 20 January 2013 - 08:33 PM.

[Jinxdom]

I'd actually like to hear the actual motive behind it before I complain about somebody getting shot. Seriously this could be a case of a kid who got bullied, snapped and he killed the ones who were causing him problems, it could be anything. When you get locked in to a position where you think you have no choice or are not getting the right kind of help, bad things generally happen.

The reasons behind an action is very important.

[questionmark]

Jinxdom, on 20 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

I'd actually like to hear the actual motive behind it before I complain about somebody getting shot. Seriously this could be a case of a kid who got bullied, snapped and he killed the ones who were causing him problems, it could be anything. When you get locked in to a position where you think you have no choice or are not getting the right kind of help, bad things generally happen.

The reasons behind an action is very important.

I would say determining how the kid got the gun and holding the gun owner responsible is much more important.

[Uncle Sam]

Jinxdom, on 20 January 2013 - 08:31 PM, said:

I'd actually like to hear the actual motive behind it before I complain about somebody getting shot. Seriously this could be a case of a kid who got bullied, snapped and he killed the ones who were causing him problems, it could be anything. When you get locked in to a position where you think you have no choice or are not getting the right kind of help, bad things generally happen.

The reasons behind an action is very important.

That is true, if it is bullying that caused him to do this, then we need to focus on stemming bullying in schools.

questionmark, on 20 January 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

I would say determining how the kid got the gun and holding the gun owner responsible is much more important.

This is the first time I heard of someone saying the gun owner who neglected to place his or her guns in the safe should be held responsible. Ah... finally some common sense in the thread. They should be held accountable for the actions of their children. Once the ownership is transferred or stolen, the gun owner shouldn't be liable for what the gun was used for.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 20 January 2013 - 08:38 PM.

[freetoroam]

Uncle Sam, on 20 January 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

Teaching children about guns isn't going to make them go on a rampage and shot everyone up, matter of fact, the opposite because they will understand what it is for. They know it is not a nerf toy that they could go around shooting at people and it won't harm them, they understand this is a action that could kill someone. Did you know 22 rounds are the most deadly because they bound around in the body, they just don't go through the body. Matter of fact, getting hit by a higher caliber round, you are more likely to live than being shot with a 22 rifle or pistol.

I never said teaching them would make them go on a rampage, not every child out there is unstable.
As for the opposite, no, if the child is unstable then knowing they can gain access to guns could only make them worse, as you pointed out before, it is the parents responsibility to know if their child is a danger or not, and this is quite clearly not always the case.