War Protesters

[lil_kanga77]

He was able to have such guns though, that's the problem!

If he didn't have those kinds of guns then many, if not all, those people would still be with us today!

I would assume it's somewhat difficult to fight back against someone who has an automatic weapon in their hands. And in a crowded place, such as that was, the casualties were always going to be high.

[Pale_Horse]

He was able to have such guns though, that's the problem!

If he didn't have those kinds of guns then many, if not all, those people would still be with us today!

I would assume it's somewhat difficult to fight back against someone who has an automatic weapon in their hands. And in a crowded place, such as that was, the casualties were always going to be high.

I understand now, it was the guns fault not the insane b*stard who went on a killing rampage.

[lil_kanga77]

If regulations didn't allow for such guns to be available, then killing sprees such as that would not happen.

Crimes such as that should rarely occur and the reason why it did is because the law makers made it possible for "crazy" people to get their hands on such deadly weapons.

Yes, he was the one who killed all those people but the point I'm trying to make is that regulations need to be tightened to hopefully prevent such terrible events from occuring again.

And two ways to do such is to ban such weapons from being available and make it harder for people to even own guns in the first place.

[Phantom]

I understand now, it was the guns fault not the insane b*stard who went on a killing rampage.

Obviously, Pale Horse... the insane b****** wouldn't have made so many casualties if he had only be armed with a dull butterknife and a case of rotten tangerines...

Edited August 25, 2003 by Phantom

[Pale_Horse]

If regulations didn't allow for such guns to be available, then killing sprees such as that would not happen.

I must disagree. When lawmakers ban law-abidding citizens from firearm possesion, the only element in society who'll possess firearms will be criminals. How will this stop senseless acts of violence as described by your link?

[Kaj]

Well..maybe it´s too late to do something about that now.

If I lived in the states I would prob. want a gun too...for protection.

Cuz it still is the wild west in a way.

But many of those guns end up in wrong hands one way or another.

[Pale_Horse]

armed with a dull butterknife and a case of rotten tangerines...

You know, we may be on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, but that still made me laugh. Hehe...tangerines..hehe...

[Kismit]

Lil Kanga , go for it .

I have lot's of friends who hunt . None of them do it with a semi-automatic weopan .

Personal responsibility is one thing that is all to often taken lightly , but accidents happen . Not all gun deaths are caused by irresponsible louts .

[Homer]

As someone who is from the 'wild west', and who has been such an outspoken warmonger since the 'war on terror', I actually agree with gun control. I believe in the right to bear arms, but I don't agree with all the various types of killing apparatus' people can purchase. I agree with hanguns, rifles and shotguns, but why would someone need a semi automatic, or a bazooka or hand grenades or a stinger missile? I strongly agree with the right to bear arms, but I also strongly agree with gun control.

My two cents

[Bizarro]

if deranged psychos didn't have a semi automatic, they would still use a gun. maybe saw off a shotgun or something like that. how about gasoline? you can burn a house down with a gallon of gas, or even an apartment building. you could kill all those people... do you ban buying gas? i could list hundreds of things like this.

you know what is sad? you can't buy a model rocket anymore because the engines are deemed useful to terrorists. that is really sad to me. its not the little kid's fault, why take his fun?

we can't possibly stop psychos from killing people. we can ban everything and they will still find a way. the problem is not the item they use to do it, rather its the psycho himself. we should spend time teaching people to be better citizens.

[Homer]

Bizarro, I understand your position on this, and I certainly don't disagree with you. I know there will always be psychos out there, and one can utilize just about anything as a tool to kill, but I would definately be more afraid of a psycho with a full automatic machine gun or explosives than I would a psycho with a knife, a container of gasoline or even a handgun

[Bizarro]

right, that is why semi-automatic guns are legal and not fully automatic ones. semi-automatics fire fast, but they still have to fire as fast as you pull the trigger. i would be more worried about a psycho with a single shot sniper rifle and good aim than someone with a semi-automatic.

from my experiences, people with bad aim like semi-automatics because they miss a lot. you can give even a single shot weapon to someone with training and they are extremely deadly.

[lil_kanga77]

Where there's a will, there's a way.

However .... banning weapons that civilians really don't have a use for is surely one way to help minimise the number of deaths via such means.

I mean, what does your neighbour need a fully automatic weapon for?

Be them a good samaritan or a bad one, the mere fact that they have one, I believe, causes problems.

[Pale_Horse]

I mean, what does your neighbour need a fully automatic weapon for?

In America, automatic weapons are banned unless one has a Federal Firearms Permit, which is extremly hard and rather expensive to get. Pretty much only gun collectors have these. The average citizen can't go out and buy a pre-ban Ak-47 from the local Wal-mart.

Edited August 26, 2003 by Pale_Horse

[Homer]

right, that is why semi-automatic guns are legal and not fully automatic ones. 

Bizarro, that is my point. That is an example of gun control.

[Kismit]

from my experiences, people with bad aim like semi-automatics

and this is better ?.....

[Bizarro]

for hunting, Kismit. not for people slaying...

[lil_kanga77]

So they end up with a bullet-riddled deer?

Certainly takes the skill out of hunting, doesn't it?

[Nancy]

Bingo Kanja....... I agree 1000% ........ While semi-automatics may be "legal" and fully-automatic guns are ILLEGAL........ Why has no one mentioned the good 'ole Black Market? Seems to me, obtaining any of these weapons...... is possible, to quote you, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

Makes NO sense to me either....... Guns that go "ratta-tat-tat" are NOT needed for the "average" Citizen, hunter or NOT.

[Pale_Horse]

So they end up with a bullet-riddled deer?

Certainly takes the skill out of hunting, doesn't it?

As a hunter, I hardly call two shots in a deer, bullet-riddled.

Makes NO sense to me either....... Guns that go "ratta-tat-tat" are NOT needed for the "average" Citizen, hunter or NOT.

So only the criminals,(who can obtain weapons illegally), who statistically have a greater inclination towards violence should have these weapons while their victims shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with the same?

[Nancy]

So only the criminals,(who can obtain weapons illegally), who statistically have a greater inclination towards violence should have these weapons while their victims shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with the same?

Pale_Horse.. That wasn't what I said, it's your interpretation.

In a "perfect world" neither criminals NOR law abiding citizens would have access to these weapons.

We don't live in a perfect world, never will! Yet, working toward the goal of eliminating these "professional" weapons, is what I had in mind. Not giving the "bad guys" any advantage.

[Pale_Horse]

So only the criminals,(who can obtain weapons illegally), who statistically have a greater inclination towards violence should have these weapons while their victims shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with the same?

Pale_Horse.. That wasn't what I said, it's your interpretation.

In a "perfect world" neither criminals NOR law abiding citizens would have access to these weapons.

We don't live in a perfect world, never will! Yet, working toward the goal of eliminating these "professional" weapons, is what I had in mind. Not giving the "bad guys" any advantage.

What do you mean by eliminate? Do you mean that one cannot buy such weapons legally, or that these weapons will simply not exist any more? ( By that I mean, no one makes them any longer and existing ones are destroyed.) Which types of weapons would you target? Actually, I'm kind of curious about your views on this.

[Nancy]

What do you mean by eliminate?  Do you mean that one cannot buy such weapons legally, or that these weapons will simply not exist any more? ( By that I mean, no one makes them any longer and existing ones are destroyed.)  Which types of weapons would you target?  Actually, I'm kind of curious about your views on this.

Seems I've managed to wake the Sleeping Lion here.

Nancy: <~~~ carefully approaching Pale_Horse with Peace Pipe.

Whew.... (deep breath, Blondie).... Two-hundred years ago in the USA, people who did not live in populated areas, as an example, used shotguns, rifles to kill game to provide for themselves, and their families. In addition, there was no organized, National ability for any method of a police force. Unless I am way off base here, it was 'each man for himself.'

Amazingly, automatic/semi-automatic weaponry as we have today, simply didn't exist. Wearing a gun on your belt or having larger weapons were a necessity to defend oneself and put food on the campfire or in one's home. Granted, there were pockets of Law and Order, scattered here and there. Basically however, people traveled from boundry to boundry, ignoring any specific State Laws and fended for themselves.

Although the "the right to bear arms" is an important and vital part of our Founding Fathers intentions, I seriously doubt Thomas Jefferson had AK-47's in mind. Again, although civilization was progressing, we were still "way out there" compared to the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century. Yet, the "right to bear arms" was never withdrawn and I am not advocating it should be!

My reference to 'eliminating professional weapons' is meant to apply to the average Joe or Jane in urban and suburban locales. Our Military and in some instances (sorry to say) our Local and State authorities need to have these for their own protection, to eliminate or at least get the BAD GUYS attention.

I am not advocating that manufacturers cease production of these powerful weapons. I am advocating the elimination of Joe and Jane having access, with or without a permit, to these vile metal weapons of terror.

My so-called "target" as you put it, includes street-wise or untrained individuals who 'require' these automatic/semi-automatic weapons for their own use. It is NOT necessary! So far (I repeat, so far) we are not a Military Nation, under the thumb of ruthless, dictators who require us to be wary of our neighbors, to the point of armed to the teeth neighborhoods.

Needless to say, Charleston Heston and I are not the Best of Friends, and..... If you start giving Deer and other wildlife AK-47's and ammo, I'd feel more comfortable about this whole convoluted situation. End of Speech. I think.......

[Homer]

So only the criminals,(who can obtain weapons illegally), who statistically have a greater inclination towards violence should have these weapons while their victims shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves with the same?

This is a very poor excuse Pale_Horse.

Victims don't usually carry these weapons on themselves, and the criminals that use them don't usually give their victims time to go get their weapons. So, it is irrelevant if only the criminals can acquire these weapons in your example, as their victims wouldn't be able to defend themselves anyway if they owned these weapons.

Edited August 31, 2003 by Homer

[Bizarro]

i still don't think you answered his question, Nancy.

my issue is that criminals HAVE illegal weapons already. even machine guns. we could ban semi-automatics, but a black market of them would continue well into the next century at least, possibly further. the problem is not the lawful user of a semi-automatic, but the criminal user. the criminals would still have access to the weapons, as they do now with automatics, and lawful citizens would not. the problem is not the weapon, its the criminal. we need better law enforcement and a more lawful citizenry to eliminate violence.

i actually believe a semi-automatic is a more humane hunting weapon because if you hunting an animal and manage to wound but not kill it in the first shot, a semi-automatic allows you the ability to quickly finish the task, whereas older weapons do not. a wounded animal could run away and suffer more if you use an older weapon. the reason people use semi-automatic rifles is because they self load, not because they are like machine guns. if we ban semi automatics, what exactly would that entail? just like Pale Horse asked, what particularly would you constitute as a banned weapon? lots of older guns have primitive self loading actions, would they be banned too? i think its a noble idea, but one that is unenforceable.

i also believe its wrong for a government to have better quality infantry weapons than the citizenry. i know, people can't have bombers or high explosives, but a semi-automatic is a balance of power in ground combat. when the military doesn't fear the people, things can get ugly. a well armed, lawful citizenry is a good thing. it deters crime and it also deters the abuse of power. we should focus on spending more money on education and social programs to deter crime, rather than wasting it on something that will make little difference like gun control. the root of violence in this country is not the gun, but rather socioeconomic factors.