What!! Guy goes on a rampage with a gun and no gun control thread yet?

[Berzerker]

Drake -

But how often do they actually help someone defend themselves? I don't think I can recall a single story in which the use of a gun helped matters. Can you?

Far more often than they are used to kill or wound someone. Yes, the LA riots - asian shopowners stood on top of their stores armed with guns. They weren't robbed of their property...

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8
I guess you Eurocommies are better behaved than us, eh? Gee, tell you what. What the US gets close to 20 million homicides, why don't the EUROPEANS come tell us about how bad we are.

)


Why ? It's your problem , not our !

And you're right, american are far from the gentlemen way of life !

[orange]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Off the top of my head. On Oct. 1, 1997 the vice principal of Pearl High School , who watched two of his students shot to death and 7 others injured, took out a gun he had hidden and chased the murderer and captured him before he could escape.

The only reason I remember that is because I lived one town over from where this happened.

That's a completely self defeating argument! If there had been stricter gun control in place, the guy who shot the two students wouldn't have had the gun in the first place!

Second of all: It's sick that a principal had a gun in his own school! What a joke, to think things like this can happen in American schools. I'd have that guy fired regardless of being seen as a 'hero' or not. Complete idiocy...

Your argument is that guns can be used to protect yourself from guns, but if you take away the guns, there's no need for the fear to exist!

[orange]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Drake -

Far more often than they are used to kill or wound someone. Yes, the LA riots - asian shopowners stood on top of their stores armed with guns. They weren't robbed of their property...

Not their job. People shouldn't take the law into their own hands...more people get killed that way.

Would you justify it if, say, one of those shopkeepers shot two men dead with those guns in 'self defense'? What if he didn't give a warning and just started firing at the rioters?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
That's a completely self defeating argument! If there had been stricter gun control in place, the guy who shot the two students wouldn't have had the gun in the first place!

IIRC, he stole the guns. So, I fail to see how stricter gun laws would have made a difference in that place.

I'd have that guy fired regardless of being seen as a 'hero' or not. Complete idiocy...

Yeah, I agree. How dare they give a guy a break just because he happened to have saved a few lives!

Your argument is that guns can be used to protect yourself from guns

I made no arguement of the kind. I merely answered a question that was asked of me.

but if you take away the guns,

I've yet to see a workable plan for this. Would you like to provide one?

[drake]

Yes, orange said what I was going to start getting at.

Guns are too readily available to unstable and irresponsible people. If I wanted to, today, I could go to the local sporting goods store, pick up a hunting rifle, a few cases of shells, walk to the local mall and smoke a few dozen people without breaking a sweat. Can't do that with a knife, or even something like a bow. Guns makes killing too easy.

Hence the amount of gun related deaths we have every year.

[RUFFHAUS 8]

Originally posted by orange


Not their job. People shouldn't take the law into their own hands...more people get killed that way.

Would you justify it if, say, one of those shopkeepers shot two men dead with those guns in 'self defense'? What if he didn't give a warning and just started firing at the rioters?

Not their job? Hmmmm, now we're getting somewhere. The police cannot protect you, nor is it their 'job' to protect you. The police enforce laws, primarily traffic laws - but that's another story (tax collection). The police engage in "Law Enforcement" not "Crime Prevention." It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family, and a loaded firearm is the best tool for the job. If you wish to ignore this responsibility, you do so at your own risk.


Yes, the hypothetical Korean storeowner would have been justified in shooting the two hypothetical rioters dead in self defense if they entered his closed store or othrwise threatened his life - yelled warning or not. Do you disagree?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8
Not their job? Hmmmm, now we're getting somewhere. The police cannot protect you, nor is it their 'job' to protect you. The police enforce laws, primarily traffic laws - but that's another story (tax collection). The police engage in "Law Enforcement" not "Crime Prevention." It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family, and a loaded firearm is the best tool for the job. If you wish to ignore this responsibility, you do so at your own risk.


Yes, the hypothetical Korean storeowner would have been justified in shooting the two hypothetical rioters dead in self defense if they entered his closed store or othrwise threatened his life - yelled warning or not. Do you disagree?

Of course we disagree, you complete ****ing loon!

Were you shot through the head as a child or were you born mentally deficient?

[drake]

Many parents in a pathetic attempt to "protect" their kids, have killed their kids by leaving weapons accessable to them.

Many people have good intentions in buying guns, but between accidents and unforseen situations, they often do much more bad than they could ever do good.

[orange]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
IIRC, he stole the guns. So, I fail to see how stricter gun laws would have made a difference in that place.

Where'd he steal them from? A gun store? A person's house? Same idea, he wouldn't be able to steal them from someone if that someone didn't have the guns.

Yeah, I agree. How dare they give a guy a break just because he happened to have saved a few lives!

Doesn't justify the crime of bringing a loaded gun into a school. Unacceptable IMO.

I made no arguement of the kind. I merely answered a question that was asked of me.

Fair enough. Sorry if I seemed to snap at you.

I've yet to see a workable plan for this. Would you like to provide one?

I think we need to look to Europe on this one. But the sooner, the better...

[orange]

Originally posted by RUFFHAUS 8
Not their job? Hmmmm, now we're getting somewhere. The police cannot protect you, nor is it their 'job' to protect you. The police enforce laws, primarily traffic laws - but that's another story (tax collection). The police engage in "Law Enforcement" not "Crime Prevention." It is your responsibility to protect yourself and your family, and a loaded firearm is the best tool for the job. If you wish to ignore this responsibility, you do so at your own risk.

Enforce laws...

There are laws against murder, there are laws against looting, there are laws against riots, theft, and arson. The police need to enforce those laws...

If you had a law banning hand guns, wouldn't they have to enforce that too? Wouldn't all these laws combined = protection?

(As a prethought, I don't think it's fair to call people "****ing loons" because of their views on something as controversial as gun control...but I do agree with Rogan Josh on this...)

Yes, the hypothetical Korean storeowner would have been justified in shooting the two hypothetical rioters dead in self defense if they entered his closed store or othrwise threatened his life - yelled warning or not. Do you disagree?

Yes I disagree. How can you justify a shooting based on a riot? What if the shopkeeper began shooting out of fear, and tried to justify it with self defense because of a riot? What if her shop wasn't even being looted. What constitutes self defense in your mind?

[drake]

Yes, the prinicipal with a gun is kind of sketchy. Isn't it a felony to have a firearm on school grounds?

[orange]

Originally posted by drake
Yes, the prinicipal with a gun is kind of sketchy. Isn't it a felony to have a firearm on school grounds?

I believe it is, one of the reasons he should definitely be fired if not prosecuted!

[loinburger]

Dude, splosions are way cooler than guns. Compare, if you will, the movies The Professional and The Specialist.

The Professional has lots of guns and a couple splosions. The Specialist has lots of splosions.

The Professional is about an assassin who only shoots a few people throughout the entire movie. The Specialist is about an assassin who blows lots of people up. Wutang!

The Professional has a whiny child actress. The Specialist does not.

The Professional detracts from its few splosion scenes by having a good plot. The Specialist ignores plot in favor of more splosions.

The Professional has some French guy as the lead. The Specialist has Stallone or Schwarzenegger or some other musclehead. Who would you prefer, a Frenchman or a weightlifter?

So clearly The Specialist is a superior movie because it has more splosions. If splosions are cooler than guns, why don't we have a "bombs for guns" program so that we can all carry around bombs for protection instead of guns? I know I'd feel a lot safer...

[David Floyd]

You know, I frankly don't give a **** if too many guns cause lots of death. That's ****ing irrelevant. Only thing that matters is that I have both the right to bear arms, and the right to private property which includes guns, guaranteed by the US Constitution. People dying because of it don't matter much to me, because my Constitutional rights outweigh any other bull**** argument you can make.

Euros and liberals don't like it? Tough ****. Don't buy a gun, or don't move to America. Just because Rosie ****ing O'Donnell thinks guns should be banned (of course, her own bodyguard carries a gun ) doesn't mean they should be.

I will say, though, that if the feds try to ban guns, that'll just make crime go up - lots and lots of dead cops and hopefully politicians too. Oh, wait, I forgot, that wouldn't be a crime, that'd simply be defending your rights.