Q-C Posted April 9, 2013 #51 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Well, as suprising as it may seem to some, I dont spend every moment of the day sat at the pc waiting for people to comment on my comments. So if you would be so kind as to forgive my lack of an instant response. Sarcasm/off http://www.motherjon...jones-full-data 62 Mass shootings since 1982, those of the larger scale. In the USA Compared to the UK which has.... the Cumbria shooting.... Dunblain.... and a handful fo others, I cant find any data but I doubt its more than 3-5 at the max. A pretty big differance, I would be willing to bet if you combined the UK, France and Germany in the same time period the USA would still rank far higher. Deaths in USA due to homicide, most recent year. - 14,748 Homicide Deaths in some EU nations/Canada/Australia for the same year. UK - 722 France - 682 Germany - 690 Spain - 390 Norway - 29 Italy - 529 Canada - 554 Australia - 229 Total - 3,825 Stats from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime - 2012 So.... thats most of western europe, canada and aus combined = less than a third of the number of homicides than the USA has alone. Running drugs from SA and Mexico northward goes hand in hand with gun crime and homocide. It is a huge problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted April 9, 2013 #52 Share Posted April 9, 2013 (edited) I live less than 4 miles from this college. We heard all the sirens, but just saw what happened. It is a very nice area. I was thinking of taking some classes there. This is incident #2 at that college (another campus though). Younger people, as in these students, are probably less likely to be carrying a concealed weapon, even in Texas. You have to take a class and pass a test (including shooting) to carry. We don't hand out concealed permits at the corner gas station. Edited April 9, 2013 by QuiteContrary 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F3SS Posted April 9, 2013 #53 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Since nobody could answer silverthongs question, I will. Campus rules, not Texas rules. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/student-hammers-no-guns-on-campus-policy-on-live-tv-after-college-stabbings-we-would-love-to-have-god-the-law-on-our-side/ STUDENT HAMMERS NO-GUNS-ON-CAMPUS POLICY ON LIVE TV AFTER COLLEGE STABBINGS [/Quote] And here's something similar from Rhode Island. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/09/uproar-after-campus-police-respond-to-armed-shooter-call-in-ri-with-pepper-spray-batons-because-they-cant-carry-guns/ UPROAR AFTER CAMPUS POLICE RESPOND TO GUNMAN SCARE WITH PEPPER SPRAY & BATONS BECAUSE OF STATE GUN LAW University of Rhode Island (URI) police responded to a call of a gunman on campus last week with pepper spray and batons, Major Stephen Baker of the URI Police Department and Community Relations Programming Officer Mark Chearino told Campus Reform. And that’s causing alarm on a state and national level. Deputized campus police officers in Rhode Island are apparently prohibited from carrying firearms on public campuses, in accordance with rules handed down by the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education. State police officers– who are allowed to be armed on campus– were still arriving roughly twenty minutes after the first call for help went out, reports add. Thankfully no shooter was found and no one was injured, but the situation “shouldn’t give any student at the university, or residents in the surrounding community, peace of mind,” PolicyMic writes. State Representative Joe Almeida, a retired police officer, is pushing a bill that would allow campus police officers who complete a firearms training course at the state’s municipal police academy to carry weapons on duty, according to WPRI-12 News. He told the station: “Because of what happened at URI, what happened in Connecticut, what’s happening in California, all across the country…something needs to be done. Do we wait for somebody to be hurt in Rhode Island or do we move now?” [/Quote] 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted April 9, 2013 #54 Share Posted April 9, 2013 There are a lot of places in public you can't carry a gun even with a concealed permit!!!! EVEN in Texas!!! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Silver Thong Posted April 10, 2013 #55 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) There are a lot of places in public you can't carry a gun even with a concealed permit!!!! EVEN in Texas!!! To Mr Fess as well. So it seems slack gun laws don`t stop mass shootings let alone tight gun laws. Maybe your all right we should all have guns to stop people with knives and hammers and broomsticks. This school saw 3 people shot what, 2 yrs ago and now this. So not to push buttons but what gun laws do americians want to stop guys with knives let alone guns. To me it seems the only winner is the law to have better back ground checks as what happened today will have those screaming it was not the knife but the person. There is no winner either way. Except that a gun could have killed everyone touched by a knife today. Edited April 10, 2013 by The Silver Thong 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-C Posted April 10, 2013 #56 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) To Mr Fess as well. So it seems slack gun laws don`t stop mass shootings let alone tight gun laws. Maybe your all right we should all have guns to stop people with knives and hammers and broomsticks. This school saw 3 people shot what, 2 yrs ago and now this. So not to push buttons but what gun laws do americians want to stop guys with knives let alone guns. To me it seems the only winner is the law to have better back ground checks as what happened today will have those screaming it was not the knife but the person. There is no winner either way. Except that a gun could have killed everyone touched by a knife today. I never said anywhere we should all have guns. I'm glad we all don't! What good is a background check for a kid who takes his parent's guns or a neighbor's guns or someone with a record who steals guns? What good is a mental health background check when they can't access private mental health records? And if you could what criteria would you use? Someone on medication? Someone who used to take medication? Someone diagnosed with this but not that? As far as how to protect from these massacres? First of all, they are in the news, but not around every corner, so the chances of you needing to defend against a mass murderer are pretty darn slim. Someone entering your home or place of business to rob or harm or kill you is far more likely. I believe Americans should have the right to hunt or shoot for fun and protect themselves. How about enforcing the laws we do have? Keeping the violent behind bars! Making mental health more accessible and affordable (covered by this insurance we ALL have to carry now). We may need to be more vigilant on the proactive side rather than the defensive side to curb our violence issues. I am not against some form of gun control. I just haven't decided what that looks like yet to make any difference. Edited April 10, 2013 by QuiteContrary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted April 10, 2013 Author #57 Share Posted April 10, 2013 So your comparing (in order). A young, developing oil-state rife with corruption, a semi-functioning nation in the middle of a sustained war, a semi-state that has existed in a state of non-stop warfare and terroriest attacks for decades, a state currently overun with drug-cartel related crime to such a degree its virtually at war, several dictatorships/failed states rife with corruption, inequality and riven by social and ethnic/religious upheaval and violence. To a stable democracy with a functioning economy, massive military power and a place at the forefront of the global economic and politcal stage? Come again? What you fail to see is that when someone decides to kill, it doesn't matter what the economic state of their nation is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted April 10, 2013 Author #58 Share Posted April 10, 2013 They're quite rightly banned over here. But the point is that a knife has a practical purpose, like a shovel or a hammer. A gun, however, is designed specifically to kill people (and other things). And it is FAR easier for an unarmed man to take out a guy with a knife, rather than one with a gun. A gun isn’t practical? A gun is great as a deterrent. A gun is used best when you don’t have to shoot it. A gun is not designed to kill but to shoot a projectile. It’s the use that Man puts to it. This is the case with anything man made. Whatever something was designed for, Man can find a way to use it to kill with. In China, the original firearms were not meant to kill your opponent but to chase them off a spot (a line or a wall, etc). It is far easier for an armed man to take out a guy with a knife without having to come within arms reach. Guns are for pussies. There’s an old ad slogan that went: GOD created man, Samuel Colt made them equal. This is the thing that gets me. The Socialists are all for wealth redistribution so that everyone can have equal outcome. Socialists should all be for gun ownership. There has never been a tool such as the firearm that has brought more equality among the rank and file or between the classes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 10, 2013 #59 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Well, as suprising as it may seem to some, I dont spend every moment of the day sat at the pc waiting for people to comment on my comments. So if you would be so kind as to forgive my lack of an instant response. Sarcasm/off http://www.motherjon...jones-full-data 62 Mass shootings since 1982, those of the larger scale. In the USA Compared to the UK which has.... the Cumbria shooting.... Dunblain.... and a handful fo others, I cant find any data but I doubt its more than 3-5 at the max. A pretty big differance, I would be willing to bet if you combined the UK, France and Germany in the same time period the USA would still rank far higher. Deaths in USA due to homicide, most recent year. - 14,748 Homicide Deaths in some EU nations/Canada/Australia for the same year. UK - 722 France - 682 Germany - 690 Spain - 390 Norway - 29 Italy - 529 Canada - 554 Australia - 229 Total - 3,825 Stats from the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime - 2012 So.... thats most of western europe, canada and aus combined = less than a third of the number of homicides than the USA has alone. And yet here again you are comparing the homocide rates of 8 small to medium sized countries each the equivilent to one or two states in the USA to 50 states. I'm not sure how the populations of the European nations compare to a large state but do know that Canada has less people than California and Australia less than that, so again you're comparing apples to oranges. Maybe you should give us a visit, then go to France or Italy and report back in which nation you get your luggage or wallet stolen if you think it's bad here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted April 10, 2013 #60 Share Posted April 10, 2013 A student who told police he'd fantasized since elementary school about stabbing people to death was charged Tuesday with carrying out a building-to-building attack at a Texas community college that wounded at least 14 people, many of whom were stabbed in the face and neck, authorities said. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/10/at-least-14-reportedly-stabbed-on-lone-star-college-campus/?test=latestnews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted April 10, 2013 #61 Share Posted April 10, 2013 A gun isn't practical? A gun is great as a deterrent. A gun is used best when you don't have to shoot it. A gun is not designed to kill but to shoot a projectile. It's the use that Man puts to it. This is the case with anything man made. Whatever something was designed for, Man can find a way to use it to kill with. I would have to agree with your first statement. A gun is a great deterrent, without a doubt. But the rest I disagree with, because a gun wasn't originally designed with deterrent in mind (though is certainly used by many for such a purpose). And sure, from a technical aspect a gun is designed to shoot a projectile, but you are twisting the logic here - it was designed that way explicitly to kill things (people, originally). My point being that, unlike a knife that was designed to cut rope or food, or a hammer that was designed to hammer nails, shooting a projectile actually serves, by itself, no practical purpose. I mean guns weren't invented or produced to machine-gun a tree down, or to demolish walls - they were and are designed to kill. That is practically their only purpose. Hell, even C4 has a practical purpose other than killing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted April 10, 2013 #62 Share Posted April 10, 2013 And yet here again you are comparing the homocide rates of 8 small to medium sized countries each the equivilent to one or two states in the USA to 50 states. I'm not sure how the populations of the European nations compare to a large state but do know that Canada has less people than California and Australia less than that, so again you're comparing apples to oranges. Maybe you should give us a visit, then go to France or Italy and report back in which nation you get your luggage or wallet stolen if you think it's bad here. It is relatively simple though to scale the numbers to show how the countries relate. Britain has 1/5 of the population of the U.S. (roughly), yet has 1/20 of the amount of deaths. That means the U.S. has 4-fold more deaths (according to the statistics provided) than the UK, per-person. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted April 10, 2013 #63 Share Posted April 10, 2013 My 1 main question to the anti-gun crowd Say we have 8,000 deaths recorded this year from gun violence across america,take away all the guns and then we have 16,000 deaths next year from baseball bats,knives,and anything else that can be used as a weapon,would everyone feel better then since it wasnt a gun that caused them?Guns deter more violence than they cause,just my opinion not fact based but no matter how the msm try to sensationalize mass shootings,very few actually happen and deaths from them are far fewer than what happens with illegal guns by criminals on a daily basis.Trying to make guns harder to get for the average law abiding citizen is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted April 10, 2013 #64 Share Posted April 10, 2013 It is relatively simple though to scale the numbers to show how the countries relate. Britain has 1/5 of the population of the U.S. (roughly), yet has 1/20 of the amount of deaths. That means the U.S. has 4-fold more deaths (according to the statistics provided) than the UK, per-person. Yeah we overdo everything don't we? Fast food, gas guzzling cars, balls of yarn, murders, coffee shops per square mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 10, 2013 #65 Share Posted April 10, 2013 why isn't anyone speaking up for a world where firearms or specifically designed weapons for killing aren't necessary ? comparing body counts just doesn't make any sense to me ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted April 10, 2013 #66 Share Posted April 10, 2013 why isn't anyone speaking up for a world where firearms or specifically designed weapons for killing aren't necessary ? comparing body counts just doesn't make any sense to me ... Because it is a unrealistic world,take away firearms and deaths will skyrocket from some other means.What i think a comment like yours should say is lets just all make it a world where it is illegal to kill......Oh yeah we already live it that kind of world yet people get killed everyday and not just by guns.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 10, 2013 #67 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Because it is a unrealistic world,take away firearms and deaths will skyrocket from some other means.What i think a comment like yours should say is lets just all make it a world where it is illegal to kill......Oh yeah we already live it that kind of world yet people get killed everyday and not just by guns.... Sun-Tzu states : When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop. Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life. Murderers cares for no laws, there in lies the difference isn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted April 10, 2013 #68 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Sun-Tzu states : When it is advantageous,move;when not advantageous,stop. Anger can revert to happiness,annoyance can revert to joy,but a vanquished state cannot be revived,the dead cannot be brought back to life. Murderers cares for no laws, there in lies the difference isn't it ? Correct but GUNS are not murderers,people are murderers,and a murderer doesnt need a gun to accomplish this.If someone has it in them to take a life no laws,no bans,no changing of the weapon will stop them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 10, 2013 #69 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Correct but GUNS are not murderers,people are murderers,and a murderer doesnt need a gun to accomplish this.If someone has it in them to take a life no laws,no bans,no changing of the weapon will stop them. Incorrect, you are comparing criminals with guns. The gun in question in this case is not the issue, it is the criminal intentions that results in killings. The opposite end might say it is simply because of availability of guns in this case that prompts one to commit killings involving guns, simply because there is guns available. The question is not whether guns kills or not and no one is punishing guns, and least of all, no one is punishing innocent gun owners. Criminals are human beings, defective and imperfect as they are, and guns are effective instruments of a killer, determined or not, rightfully or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted April 10, 2013 Author #70 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Socialist is Fascist? You mean this isn't clear to you? I'm going to briefly touch on this. Yes, they are the same. Please don't resort to trying to tell me how they are different by providing definitions. We all know how they are different – that's not the point. But I put it to you; tell me the one thing that makes them the same. When you do that, they become interchangeable for all practical purposes. To get hung up on definitions is just being a stooge of the state. My main point, is that the go-to response is one of irrational anger. By way of example. In the USA if a child/young adult/adult is feeling isolated and bullied etc etc a fairly "common" response appears to be "Ill show em! Ill show em all! will make them all pay!" Some of them then go and grab an m16, wander onto campus and mow down a dozen or so people, most of whom would have likely never met the offender. That's the go-to irrational response. What about the go-to rational response? This is what the government is afraid of. And they use the irrational response to distract from this fact. Do you consider our little Revolution a rational or irrational response? 237 years ago, you probably would call it irrational. We have a document associated to that event. Part of it states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." We did it to a king. There is nothing that prevents the people from doing it to a President. In fact, if you get into what the Founding Fathers intended, they expected that we have such a purge from time to time. Now with that stated, the text from that document immediately following this excerpt states: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." This Presidency is on the threshold of lasting usurpations. So at what point does this go from irrational white supremacist action to rational acts of patriots to do their duty to throw off such despotism? To think that the government can thwart this from happening is a miscalculation of Socialism. Just as with any dictatorship, it only takes a matter of time before the peasants revolt. The independence and individualism that you don't have or understand is what allows us to have the vigilance to stand guard. Many times righteous anger can be misconstrued as irrational anger. And the government uses that confusion to grab more power. I suppose you are aware of some of what is going on here with an upcoming vote on gun control? The President is using a tactic that all dictators have used in the past, demanding that a vote *MUST* be taken, juxtaposing his agenda for the will of the people. They are not the same. Its not a rational response, it simply does not really happen in other countries. Even if you feel your "rights" are being infringed upon, the rational response is not mass slaughter. I think it is in error to compare Europe with the US. Europe may be comparable to the US in population size only. But each European nation is still a separate entity with an average population of around 40million?? In this country, we may have different races and cultures represented and discrimination exists, but for the most part, all 315 million of us are American. So of course, *it* will happen less in Europe. Population bases are far smaller. Death rates from firearms in this nation are around 30,000. 99% of it is not mass slaughter in nature. Drug abuse and auto accidents account for more deaths than firearms. There are far more deaths from heart attacks and cancer. This society is not going to de-evolved into a nation gone rampant on killing each other. There is a normal risk of being killed by an irrational killer. But if rational people are armed as well, that risk is reduced. It's all about taking personal responsibility for your own life. This is what government fears most. If we are all forced to purchase health insurance, a firearm should be included. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted April 10, 2013 #71 Share Posted April 10, 2013 it is the criminal intentions that results in killings. Thats pretty much what my point was And yes guns are effective weapons but so can anything else.Hell you can choke someone to death in a short time span with a shoestring,do we need to ban shoestrings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted April 10, 2013 #72 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Incorrect, you are comparing criminals with guns. The gun in question in this case is not the issue, it is the criminal intentions that results in killings. The opposite end might say it is simply because of availability of guns in this case that prompts one to commit killings involving guns, simply because there is guns available. The question is not whether guns kills or not and no one is punishing guns, and least of all, no one is punishing innocent gun owners. Criminals are human beings, defective and imperfect as they are, and guns are effective instruments of a killer, determined or not, rightfully or not. Oh and i was not comparing criminals to guns,i clearly stated guns are not murderers.Comparing the 2 would have been stating what a gun and a murderer had in common.Seeing how a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own there is no comparing the 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHaYap Posted April 10, 2013 #73 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Thats pretty much what my point was And yes guns are effective weapons but so can anything else.Hell you can choke someone to death in a short time span with a shoestring,do we need to ban shoestrings? but you are using the point as a blunt instrument, just as someone using shoe strings to kill, it doesn't apply so well Oh and i was not comparing criminals to guns,i clearly stated guns are not murderers.Comparing the 2 would have been stating what a gun and a murderer had in common.Seeing how a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own there is no comparing the 2 exactly ... but you do not see that when the guns are used with criminal intentions, it is as much an extension of the criminal as it empowers them as a armed criminal what I meant by you comparing 'guns and criminals' is that you stated "a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own" where as a criminal with intentions shoulders the consequences entirely. my point is : the gun is the thoughts of the criminal armed with it, it is therefore as responsible for the crimes committed with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted April 10, 2013 #74 Share Posted April 10, 2013 but you are using the point as a blunt instrument, just as someone using shoe strings to kill, it doesn't apply so well exactly ... but you do not see that when the guns are used with criminal intentions, it is as much an extension of the criminal as it empowers them as a armed criminal what I meant by you comparing 'guns and criminals' is that you stated "a gun is not capable of thought or action on its own" where as a criminal with intentions shoulders the consequences entirely. my point is : the gun is the thoughts of the criminal armed with it, it is therefore as responsible for the crimes committed with it Ok i can see what you are saying,but take for example You and a friend are hanging out and the "friend" bad intentions but you have no clue.They have a icepick and put it through your skull,they know an icepick isnt intended as a weapon,it is meant to break up ice.But breaking up ice for a nice cold drink isnt their intentions when they scramble your brains with it.Would you feel better that it wasnt a bullet that killed you?Just because what took your life wasnt intended as a dangerous weapon?What i am saying is anything can be used as a dangerous weapon if the intent is there.See what i am saying?Just because you take guns away you do not take away dangerous intentions that can still be carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aztek Posted April 10, 2013 #75 Share Posted April 10, 2013 why isn't anyone speaking up for a world where firearms or specifically designed weapons for killing aren't necessary ? becose we talk about real world, not imaginary utopia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now