Oikos university shooting

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Robert Ewing:
Wow, sucks hard D:'

I wonder how long it will take for video games to be blamed, as the guy who did it pulled a trigger. And there a plenty of depictions of trigger pulling in games.

Nah, when adults are the ones doing the killings they usually blame guns, as if that solves fucking anything. The dude that did this is in his forties.

reonhato:

Vryyk:

reonhato:

go look up the other gun threads. there have been numerous links to various sources just over the last few months in various threads. im not going to go through the trouble of getting them again and again when most of the pro gun people on this forum like farson and CM have shown time and time again they do not care what the studies say because they know best from personal experience and the NRA says guns are good so anything otherwise must be a lie.

Well, if you're not willing to provide facts I don't really know what else I can say. You have to be willing to qualify statements made out to be facts, and the burden of proof doesn't rest on me when you make an argument based off of these supposed "facts".

i have provided facts and there are studies to show it. i have given you the location of sources, if you are too lazy to go check them out then that is your problem not mine.

the fact that so many americans like you do not know that guns increase your risk, that escalating violence is a bad thing, shows just how ignorant your country is. the sheer number of people who keep a gun in the house for safety despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is more dangerous to keep a gun then not have one at all makes me feel sorry for those trying to fight the uphill battle against ignorance in america.

"Laziness" has nothing to do with it, if you make a case and back that case with supposed "facts", it's your job to qualify those statements and provide sources for those "facts", not mine. This is pretty basic when it comes to debates of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

If I were to say "most gun owners are geniuses" or something equally baseless and opinionated, it would be on me to corroborate my statement with facts.

omega 616:

Yeah, the guy wants to rob you, not kill you. You want to kill him 'cos he wants to rob you ... where is the confusion?

The 'Confusion' is actually what he's there to do. You are assuming he is just there to rob me. And while that may be the most likely case, it makes no sense for me to assume that.

Do you know what a career criminal is? They don't get cash for the severity of the crime, they get cash by selling your shit. your corpse is prison time they don't want when they are caught.

Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me.

So why own a gun and what would you do in that scenario? Just tell me, every time I ask this nobody tells me! They go like politians and dance round it!

Sure. I'll tell you. Each scenario has a number of variables, so I'll present a specific one. It's night, I'm asleep with my wife in bed. Suddenly there's a loud crash and the sound of my home alarm system screeching. Bear starts barking and I am out of my bed. I tell my wife to call 911 while I retrieve and load my Mossberg. I figure by this point if the asshole hasn't left yet, he has no compunction about getting caught. I find him, take aim and tell him to show me his hands. If he bolts - oh well. If he complies, great. If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?

So you're assuming with no other thought than "he has broke one law, why not more" that he will kill you? Yeah, those guys on weed sure are doing a lot murders, frauds and rapes these days ....

Right...there's no difference between someone who hits the reefer and someone who breaks into a house.

You aren't dispensing justice? This sounds like just that! "But NO ONE gets to threaten me. NO ONE gets to threaten my wife. NO ONE gets to threaten my children" that certainly sounds like you want to serve your own kind of justice.

That isn't justice, that's self defense. Justified, not justice.

So somebody in your house, you somehow get your gun on him first, if he runs you forget about it but if he starts to aim or otherwise threaten you, you kill him? Correct?

Correct.

yeah, I will stick with bloodthirsty.

Because I don't wanna get shot? Huh. I guess 'bloodthirsty' means something different over there than it does here. Here it means a desire to kill for sake of killing, which I have stated is not the case.

Don't send them over here, we suck with the whole in prison bit. At least we have more arrests than fatal shootings though.

But at least you won't have to worry your head at night that out there, somewhere, a criminal might get hurt.

Vryyk:

reonhato:

Vryyk:

Well, if you're not willing to provide facts I don't really know what else I can say. You have to be willing to qualify statements made out to be facts, and the burden of proof doesn't rest on me when you make an argument based off of these supposed "facts".

i have provided facts and there are studies to show it. i have given you the location of sources, if you are too lazy to go check them out then that is your problem not mine.

the fact that so many americans like you do not know that guns increase your risk, that escalating violence is a bad thing, shows just how ignorant your country is. the sheer number of people who keep a gun in the house for safety despite the overwhelming evidence that suggests it is more dangerous to keep a gun then not have one at all makes me feel sorry for those trying to fight the uphill battle against ignorance in america.

"Laziness" has nothing to do with it, if you make a case and back that case with supposed "facts", it's your job to qualify those statements and provide sources for those "facts", not mine. This is pretty basic when it comes to debates of any kind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

If I were to say "most gun owners are geniuses" or something equally baseless and opinionated, it would be on me to corroborate my statement with facts.

The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.

Archroy:
Did you click on those links or are you just making assumptions? The links I posted contain information about the dangers of having guns in the house when you have kids.

I did and guess where they got those numbers? From the survey I was talking about. The part you quoted comes that survey and it was the part I was addressing.

CM156:

The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.

omega 616:

senordesol:

omega 616:

Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond". Most human life is worth more than whatever you own in your home, especially if you can get all that stuff back for nothing.

Correct. *Most* human life. As in Folks who are able to go about their day without making victims of their fellow man. Of course what you fail to consider is that 'whatever you own' in your home also includes the lives and safety of yourself and your loved ones. Now life insurance exists, sure, but I somehow doubt it will quite cover the loss of your spouse or child.

When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.

I'm happy to hear that you have no problem rolling over and showing your belly to which ever random criminal is looking to make you their next victim. Some of us have a spine though and won't be made a victim of so easily.

If someone attacks me, or breaks into my home, or tries to rob me their life becomes forfeit. I have a conceal carry permit and I will not hesitate to protect myself and my property with lethal force if necessary. I'm not going to wait to determine nor do I care if the person is just after my laptop or he's looking to hurt me. I'm going to shoot him until he stops twitching for being a fucking criminal breaking into my house. If people don't want to die during the committing of a crime then they probably should refrain from committing crimes. Seems simple enough to me at least.

One of the main purposes of government is to protect it's citizens and their property. However, if they are in a situation where the government is failing in this duty citizens are within every ethical and moral right to protect their own well being and property. And seeing as we all can't have our own policeman following us around 24/7 there are guaranteed to be times when it's up to the individual to protect themselves or their property.

Vryyk:

CM156:

The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.

I'm flipping through the posts, and I'm unable to find it. Perhaps Farson himself would know where it was.

Sorry, but I can't be of more help for that.

CM156:

Vryyk:

CM156:

The reason he doesn't like to show his sources is because Farson showed him the problem underlying nearly all his numbers: It only accounts for intruders shot, not those who brandishing a weapon was enough to scare away. It also doesn't account for people with illegal guns killing their family as well, or people with criminal histories.

He's done this before, too.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.

I'm flipping through the posts, and I'm unable to find it. Perhaps Farson himself would know where it was.

Sorry, but I can't be of more help for that.

No problem, thanks for looking.

reonhato:
stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.

Stun guns, one shot only and if you miss, your getting murdered, raped, or something else. Pepper spray, can be ignored by violent perps, go watch some videos if you want; its not going to stop most violent people. Rape whistle, yeah, because that would help a woman alone at night possibly nowhere near other people. Yelling, really?

Also, from your argument that America is the "retard" of the world clearly shows that you're bringing nothing but bias and misinformation to bear on this argument, why don't you save yourself some time and stay out of things you clearly don't understand. Bad guys will always, no matter what the government does, have guns. Though the government can very easily take away law-abiding citizen's rights to own firearms. So how exactly does restricting gun ownership make the citizen safer?

It doesn't. It takes guns out of the hands of the responsible populace and leaves them in the hands of off-the-grid criminals. You may advocate a defenseless, helpless citizenry but American's will simply never share your timid mindset. Call us "retards" if you like, but it won't change how we conduct our affairs here, and the fact we have some basic freedoms here most of the developed world simply forbids.

And I know you won't agree, because the police, pepper spray and tazers are all a person "needs" to be safe.

So next time a violent criminal with a gun is breaking in through your front door, would you rather have a cop on the phone? Or a gun in your hand?

farson135:

Archroy:
As to the issue of whether you are more at risk if there is a gun in your house, the following links have interesting information, particularly regarding children and firearms.

Not again. You have posted on several topics where I went over this. Here we go again-

The person who handled that survey was not a criminologist or a sociologist but was instead a biologist. His methods were perfectly appropriate for studying bacterial cultures but NOT human behavior.

He did not take time into account. Why is that important?

Because most suicides with guns are either within the first few months of purchase (implying that the gun was bought with the intention of committing suicide)

How do you know this?

or the gun has been present for generations (given enough time every family will have someone commit suicide).

Again, how do you know? I personally only knew one person who killed themself. One per family, eventually, seems like an awful lot.

Also in terms of murder if the gun was bought in immediately then the purpose might have been murder

Yes it might, or it might not. It might be that they wanted what some people call a useful, nay necessary tool; or they were exercising their constitutional rights and all that. Maybe they just liked to look at the thing.

OR the firearm might have been bought for the purpose of protection from a perceived threat that just happened to materialize.

It seems to me that many gun owners do buy them for protection from a possible future threat that sometimes materializes. So what? They still bought the thing.

Also he did not even take into account WHETHER OR NOT THE GUN IN THE HOME WAS EVEN USED. Seriously, if a burglar just broke in and killed the gun owner in his/her sleep and the victims gun was never used it still counted.

I don't know about this, as I haven't read the survey. Someone earlier in the thread made mention of the subject and I had a quick google and those links were what I found. They focus on the issue of children living in households with guns.

From this link:

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

"According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries."
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths among children in 26 industrialized countries. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1997; 46 101 -105

"What are the risks for teens?
Parents of teenagers are less likely to store firearms safely [7]. This is a big concern, since most firearm injuries happen to teens. Teens are at greater risk of attempting suicide, and a suicide attempt with a gun is likely to be deadly. More than 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are deadly, and teens in homes with firearms are at higher risk for committing suicide [8]."

[7] Johnson RM, Miller M, Vriniotis M, Azrael D, Hemenway D. Are household firearms stored less safely in homes with adolescents?: Analysis of a national random sample of parents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Aug;160(8):7

[8] Committee on Adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. Suicide and suicide attempts in adolescents. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):871-4.

From here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4535/index1.html

We read:

"The data show that many firearms in homes with children are dangerously accessible. In 9 percent of homes with children and firearms, at least one firearm is stored unlocked and loaded, and in another 4 percent at least one firearm is unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition. This means that in about 13 percent of homes with children and firearms--about 2.6 million children in 1.4 million homes--firearms are stored in a way that makes them most accessible to children. Overall, fewer than half of the U.S. families with firearms and children store firearms locked (either in a locked place or secured with a trigger lock) and separate from ammunition. "

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/107/6/1247.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11943968?dopt=Abstract
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/2/e109.full

Tl;dr: people think that their bundle of joy is special and would never play with a gun if they found one. This is not the case.

"In presenting early findings from this survey to a panel of law enforcement officers, we witnessed myriad demonstrations of this "selective blindness" phenomenon, in which adults who agree in principle that guns should be stored in ways that are inaccessible to children do not see the need for caution with their own children. Gun safety is thus framed as a matter of protecting other people's children, rather than one's own. While police officers were quick to embrace the idea of teaching others of the need to properly secure their firearms, both male and female officers who had children in their homes were open in admitting that they did not-and would not, even after the presentation-secure their firearms with locks or lock boxes. The number one rationale we heard from this audience? My kids know better. "

Bolded by me.

Edit to add this link bout teenage suicide from the AAP:
http://www.healthychildren.org/English/health-issues/conditions/emotional-problems/Pages/Teen-Suicide-and-Guns.aspx

"Studies have shown that the risk of suicide is 4 to 10 times higher in homes with guns than in those without."
" Suicide attempts with a gun are very likely to be deadly."
"Suicide attempts with drugs or methods other than guns have a greater chance of survival."
"Most young survivors of a serious suicide attempt do not commit suicide later, and most survivors of suicide attempts are glad they were saved."

why is this a gun issue?

it was committed by a psycho who would have killed anyway or gotten a gun off the streets, and it went down in an area that guns are not allowed, you know...a school.

these are freak fucking accidents and people who try and make this about guns (no matter what side) are just as stupid as people who blame video games.

how about blaming the guy who SHOT SEVEN PEOPLE!!!!

I just wanted to add, for all the proponents of taking guns out of the hands of the American citizenry, go look up the murder and crime rates for Israel, a country where just about every male owns an assault rifle and compare them to the US, where only a portion of the population is armed. Israel statistically is a much safer place to live, even though everyone has a gun, and there could be bombing or terrorist attacks.

Gee, maybe responsible, trained gun use is a good thing for protecting the people? Surely not though, we just need more rape whistles and everything will be all right.

Dr. Dice Lord:
I just wanted to add, for all the proponents of taking guns out of the hands of the American citizenry, go look up the murder and crime rates for Israel, a country where just about every male owns an assault rifle and compare them to the US, where only a portion of the population is armed. Israel statistically is a much safer place to live, even though everyone has a gun, and there could be bombing or terrorist attacks.

Gee, maybe responsible, trained gun use is a good thing for protecting the people? Surely not though, we just need more rape whistles and everything will be all right.

and switzerland, dont forget the swiss where everyone owns a military style assault rifle....

awesome.

Vryyk:
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, if the evidence was as clear and irrefutable in his favor as he claims, he would have shown it to me by now. Mind linking me to the post where Farson chops up his argument please? I'd like a gander at what his "sources" have to say as well.

What sources would you like?

Matthew94:
I guess the Asian guy wanted to Cho... the pupils who was boss.

OT This is a terrible incident.

EDIT Why are these people so bad at killing people? They only ever get a few kills despite being in a building with hundreds of people.

You do realise arabs are also asian right? So you're 'joke' is kinda meh.

OT: Gaming did it! Gaming did it! Gaming did it!

Honestly. Schoolshooting are happening way to often around the world. The hell is wrong with these people and what manner of holes in the ground do they crawl up out of?

It's awful something like this happened, it's always awful.

That being said, it's also awful the old and tired arguments that occur every time over the same dead horse issues.

At least they aren't trying to blame Goths or Metalheads or Video Games this time. (yet)

martyrdrebel27:
people, as americans our guns are (optimistically for a single purpose only) for the rise up and revolution against our government should the need arise. when the founding fathers were writing their new government, they realized that any institution is succeptable to tyranny and therefor must be overthrown. jefferson himself said this same thing. they realized that without the freedom to bear arms, they would have never been able to overthrow their oppressors, and realized in the future we may need that again.

so guns are out there, for better or worse. part of being in a free society is willingness to give up a little bit of safety. yes, we could be "safer" if guns were illegal, but we wouldn't be free. so our freedom costs us absolute safety. but even that safety is an illusion. hand held automatics (uzi's and whatnot) are illegal to own, but criminals still obtain and use them.

yes, occasionally things like this happen, but fucking deal with it, because the alternative is too orwellian for any of to support.

viva la revolution.

This is so right.

People can make the "Gun Debate" in America all about self-defense, which is important, too, but when you go to the core, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is less about self-defense against criminals, and more about self-defense against a tyrannical government.

irishda:

This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).

This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.

In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.

This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.

Archroy:

farson135:
He did not take time into account. Why is that important?

Because most suicides with guns are either within the first few months of purchase (implying that the gun was bought with the intention of committing suicide)

How do you know this?

Which part? We he didn't take it into account because it was not in the study. We know that most suicides happen in a certain time frame based on various studies. Here is one (it also links to several other studies)- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730662/pdf/v006p00245.pdf

"In regard to this time interval, several studies have indicated that the period immediately after the firearm purchase is particularly high risk for suicide. A study using information from handgun purchase applications found that the rate of firearm suicide in the first week after the purchase of a handgun was 57 times as high as the rate in the general population.3 A study based on ATF trace data for suicide firearms in Wisconsin also demonstrated a sharp increase in risk of suicide within one week of firearm purchase."

Again, how do you know? I personally only knew one person who killed themself. One per family, eventually, seems like an awful lot.

Once again read through the studies.

Also (assuming they would not just use something else if guns were available), imagine all of the people on the main branch of your family since your Great-Grandparents. Got it? How many people is that? 30? 40? More? Now imagine that you take all of those people and just keep adding for a few more centuries. That is a lot of people. Now imagine that your family kept firearms in their home that entire time. Don't you think that eventually one of your family members will (at least) attempt to commit suicide, just based on odds?

Yes it might, or it might not. It might be that they wanted what some people call a useful, nay necessary tool; or they were exercising their constitutional rights and all that. Maybe they just liked to look at the thing.

And? My point was that a time factor would have helped eliminate such things.

It seems to me that many gun owners do buy them for protection from a possible future threat that sometimes materializes. So what? They still bought the thing.

More along the lines of my life has been threatened so I buy a gun to protect myself, then my life is put in danger and I die. The relevance is that that person's life was in immediate danger and the bought the gun for that reason, thus skewing the study slightly. Your average gun owner may have bought the gun for self protection but it is typically a less solid threat.

I don't know about this, as I haven't read the survey. Someone earlier in the thread made mention of the subject and I had a quick google and those links were what I found. They focus on the issue of children living in households with guns.

Those numbers you quoted were from the survey.

From this link:

http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm

"According to the CDC, the rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. American children are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die in a firearm accident than children in these other countries."

Firearm deaths. That is the important part, not deaths but deaths by a specific method.

From here:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB4535/index1.html

We read:

"The data show that many firearms in homes with children are dangerously accessible. In 9 percent of homes with children and firearms, at least one firearm is stored unlocked and loaded, and in another 4 percent at least one firearm is unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition. This means that in about 13 percent of homes with children and firearms--about 2.6 million children in 1.4 million homes--firearms are stored in a way that makes them most accessible to children. Overall, fewer than half of the U.S. families with firearms and children store firearms locked (either in a locked place or secured with a trigger lock) and separate from ammunition. "

They say it is a problem but 2.6 million children and only 194 deaths in 3 years (2005-2007) is not that significant. That is .00000075% of that population and it does not include every child or gun owning family. http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Blablahb:

Matthew94:
EDIT Why are these people so bad at killing people? They only ever get a few kills despite being in a building with hundreds of people.

Killing is difficult if done in visual range. Watching people get hit and fall has a big psychological impact that takes a bit of struggle to overcome.

You really need to force yourself to take concious aim again after it, and I imagine this latest exponent of the 'godgiven right to bear arms' will have been affected by it as well.

And thats why ill never go on a shooting rampage. Just because I have no problem shhoting a gun, doesnt mean ill be able to take a life of someone, sans the person in question wanting to take my life.

I just want to know how these people manage to actually go through with it. They have to be mentally ill, no normal person can one day just up and start taking lives.

10 quotes, are you guys kidding me! 10 quotes ... man alive!

Nieroshai:
snip

"since when does ownership of a gun make someone violent" round about the same time they aim at a human/animal and pull the trigger ... it seems violent to me.

Here is a quote from a pro gun person "If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head." ... yeah, peace man ....

"It isn't people with guns that kills" no rational level headed people talk it out or think "yeah you are a criminal but you are also human, therefore your life is still worth more than the goods I can easily get back".

"it's violent, psychotic people with guns that kills" Is that what we are calling the armed forces these days?

"And those very people would also be willing to use explosives and knives. Most mad bombings I've ever heard of were done with homemade explosives." which also have uses for other things, knives cut food for example but guns are only meant to kill.

"Also, take the scenario of one student bringing a gun to school. That gun was brought on campus despite the law to begin with. The IRA has guns despite Britain's gun laws. But if, say, the teacher was armed or something, the whole situation could be minimalized. If things got to that point, the armed potential victim could save a lot of lives by eliminating the mad gunman who like I said would have a gun whether it was legal or not."

You can't say that making guns illegal means they are harder to get hold off, that is just common sense ... like the prohibition but like with the prohibition people can still get guns.

I bet the IRA are connected to a country where owning guns is legal or at least widespread, such as America, so they smuggle them in and use them. I don't get your point here.

I bet school shootings have happened in the UK but while I have heard of 3 American school shootings, I have never heard of a UK school shooting. Making guns harder to get reduces risk, that is obvious.

Sure if somebody wants to kill they will but by making it illegal to own a gun, reduces the chances that people will be killed 'cos they are harder to get. Selling them in the supermarket is basically putting the guns in peoples minds.

I have no idea how to articulate myself at the moment, I want to say something but can't find the words haha

JoesshittyOs:
snip

All guns do is make things worse, I know America will never give up the safety blanket but making guns so easily obtained by anybody is stupid.

Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.

I think if civvies should be allowed to use guns they should be forced to have quarterly mental checks should be done on people who own a gun, to make sure they are not depressed, overly angry, responsible etc. I think they should tested on aim as well, what if they miss there target and kill some innocent person in the background.

Darknacht:
snip

Hahaha, sorry but in a country that allows guns to be sold so freely "the idea is if they have something less then a gun you can defend your self" .... just wow.

You still never answered my situation though. You say you have a sword, to go medieval on there ass, so using the layout of your home, what would you in my situation with both a gun and knife/bat.

So the guy charges you, there is no "warning shot" it is just shoot to kill? Correct. Seriously, I don't want to be accused of making accusations or anything.

In the UK, from what I heard the robbers just rob, they only attack once confronted. If they left me alone and just robbed me, then I would leave them to it. If they walk over and try to start kicking and punching then I would fight back 'cos I have no idea where they would stop.

I wouldn't let them get a free shot but if they came towards me, with there arm raised then I would.

Vryyk:
By the way, why do you seem to think that the only way to use a gun is to kill someone? If someone came into my house through the kitchen and tried to shake down my roommate for valuables it wouldn't be hard for me in my bedroom to grab my carbine and simply hold it on the criminal while I waited for the cops to show up.

Hell, I could even scare him off with a threat or warning shot (not that warning shots are terribly safe, I'd shoot at the ceiling from another room to spook him off if anything). I'm well trained and an excellent shot, but blindly shooting him is obviously risky and I'd rather defuse it bloodlessly, this idea that gun owners are just looking for a excuse to murder someone is silly.

I was using hyperbole a lot. Seriously though, gun owners seemingly always say stuff like

It's the idea that you need to gun to do that and you value personal stuff way more than human life. It's like you all think "OMG law breaker, must aim gun at them 'cos I naturally assume they want to hurt me".

Also this quote "If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head." made by a pro gun user.

Chevalier noir:
snip

No, it's just logic. They are stealing 'cos they need money, not to hurt people. If somebody wants to beat you up or rape you they do that, not rob you and rape you.

It's like "I need money, better rob something" rather than "I need money, lets rob and beat people up with occasional rape".

What kind of hell do you occupy where you naturally assume the worst and jump to the worst conclusion?

Even though I never actually said this is a 100% thing, just taking your words out of my mouth ...

Anthony Wells:
you know that rearely guns are used by the people who own them when they commit crimes..? and bannign guns wont stop them...the blackmarket will still get you stuff in a snap.. hoenstly the argument over wether to ban guns or not is a stupid one... fine ban them and watch crimes like these not stop. at all. and crime rate not go down at all.

All ready covered this, banning guns would be like the prohibition but at least stuff should be brought in to stop fucking morons owning guns.

Like I said above in one of the other 10 quotes I have had to deal with so far, need very stringent checks on gun owners. We have so many professions that need psych analysis but owning a tool designed for nothing but killing is a free market? Dafuq?

Chunga the Great:
So if someone robs me, I'm expected to just sit back and let them take whatever the hell they want and trash my house? What happens if the police don't find your stuff? What happens if you don't have insurance? If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head. Maybe where you live, criminals are polite and will only take what they need without harming you or breaking stuff. Here, they will beat the shit out of you, break you windows, break into your car, trash your house, then make off with the most valuable stuff they can find. How about you come live where I live, then tell me guns should be banned.

First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!

You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?

Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.

I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!

Again, guns = safety blanket

senordesol:
snip

No, it's normal to assume a robber is there to rob ... that is why they are called robbers. If they where murderers, they wouldn't rob 'cos then they would be robbers ....

Since you are all so very fond of slippery slopes, why not be hostile to everybody? "look at that motherfucker holding the door for me! Better shoot that sunofa!".

No, if they get caught they want the smallest prison sentence, only people who love prison want more prison time. Why opt for more prison time if all you want is cash?

This just sounds bloodthirsty, which you seem to forget is an opinion. I think it is and you think the opposite, get over it! Everything all you pro gun people say just sounds like rednecks after killing a buck. Just look at how nonchalantly you say this "If he does anything remotely threatening, however, I'll have to make an appointment with Stanley Steamer Carpet Cleaners. Clear enough?".

Hey this is your crazy country who shoots law breakers 'cos we all know that if you break the law you might want to kill a family. Look you said it yourself "Perhaps. Maybe they're willing to risk it. They're willing to risk prison time just by being in my house, that's up to them not me." just change in my house to high.

Tomato tomato

AAAAAAAND lastly, the 10th and final person on this epic post o' mine!

Xanthious:
snip

No, I just have a heart and not think that a person who is so desperate to steal from other people deserves to be killed. I don't care what you own, 99% of human life is worth more.

I would defend myself, not inanimate stuff I don't need to live. Do I need an ipod? A tv? A ps3? A phone? A computer? No, they are all luxuries.

I am not a shrink but isn't this what a brainwashed person sounds like? "One of the main purposes of government is to protect it's citizens and their property. However, if they are in a situation where the government is failing in this duty citizens are within every ethical and moral right to protect their own well being and property. And seeing as we all can't have our own policeman following us around 24/7 there are guaranteed to be times when it's up to the individual to protect themselves or their property.".

Or to put it into a more concise sentence "just give me a reason to kill you!". Again, you just sound bloodthirsty.

This law you have recited so accurately, that I bet you got a gold star on your homework for is so out of date, isn't it a joke!?

Unless I am very misguided, wasn't all that crap written around the time when there civil wars, wars with the English and it was all a bit lawless? Some people where trying to form the US and others wanted it separated or something? Not big on history though.

Anyway, they wanted the civvies to be armed to stand a better chance in case somebody tried to take there land? Now America is the bully of the world, who the fuck do you think will invade?

omega 616:
10 quotes, are you guys kidding me! 10 quotes ... man alive!

If you say something ridiculous like that, yeah, people are gonna have a problem with it.

All guns do is make things worse, I know America will never give up the safety blanket but making guns so easily obtained by anybody is stupid.

You'll find that I actually agree with you. I don't really understand why people get so up in arms (no pun intended) when the Government tries to enforce stricter gun control

Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.

What does a weed habit have to do with anything? You aren't one of those people who seem to think that weed somehow makes you violent, are you? Because I'm about to throw down some links like there is no tomorrow.

But throughout all of this, you seemed to have missed the point. People will buy guns. You never hear about the times guns actually save people, but you will hear about the times guns end up being part of some major catastrophe. I have a great uncle who lives right on a ranch right on the border between here and Mexico, and there are multiple occasions where illegal immigrants cross the border.

Every now and again, they'll end up killing a few of his cattle. He caught one once with a machete, and he walked out with a pistol and told them to fuck off.

Of course he's old as dirt and has pretty bad arthritis, so he couldn't even cock the hammer, but the point is he needs that gun. Because a few of those immigrants crossing the borders won't think twice about causing you harm.

omega 616:
First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!

You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?

Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.

I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!

Again, guns = safety blanket

Sorry to quote you twice, what the hell was this? He's somehow an idiot for not getting insurance? Do you realize how shitty this economy is, and not everybody is made of money?

I agree 100% with him. He doesn't have insurance on something of his, and you expect him to just allow the crook to rob him blind? A good deal of people 18-20s, simply can't take that chance. He loses that computer, or loses that car of his, he simply isn't getting it back any time soon. So yeah, that Criminal who chose to break in has now condemned his own life. If some dickweed's illegal actions are going to make my life difficult, than he fuck him.

I'm honestly surprised that you don't grasp the harshness of the world. Moving out of the neighborhood? That's rarely ever a cost effective option. The rash decision is not to do something that's gonna put you up to your neck in debt for the rest of your life, just so Robby McRoberton can steal my shit knowing that no one's going to fight back.

omega 616:
This law you have recited so accurately, that I bet you got a gold star on your homework for is so out of date, isn't it a joke!?

Unless I am very misguided, wasn't all that crap written around the time when there civil wars, wars with the English and it was all a bit lawless? Some people where trying to form the US and others wanted it separated or something? Not big on history though.

Talking about the Second Amendment?

If so, this applies. If not, feel free to ignore it. Your post was rather vague, so I'm assuming that you're talking about that.

First off, the Second Amendment isn't a law. It's part of the Bill of Rights. Same with free speech, religion, press, ect

Secondly, it was written with the rest of the bill of rights, way back in 1789. It came into affect back in 1791.

\The right of an individual to keep and bear arms for "traditionally lawful purposes" such as defense within their home, was upheld in the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling

Held:

Tl;DR version? It's an individual right to own guns in America. And it's also a right to use it for self-defense. What constitutes self-defense varies by state. My state (Missouri) is a castle doctrine state. Many are. This is because we don't think you should second guess people who are defending their home from illegal intruders. That, and Americans as a whole don't have much sympathy for criminals.

This right was further upheld in McDonald v. Chicago, which ruled that the right was "incorporated" through the 14th Amendment.

Of course the only things I "know" about obtaining a gun is from the media, like you have to wait 3-5 days but it seems like any knuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit with enough cash could buy a killing tool.

I think if civvies should be allowed to use guns they should be forced to have quarterly mental checks should be done on people who own a gun, to make sure they are not depressed, overly angry, responsible etc.

Any "nuckle dragging, high school drop out, with a weed habit" who is over 18 can also vote, sans any felony convictions. Why? Both are civil rights.

Also, I think you may have trouble with the whole "quarterly mental checks". People are suing against the law that makes you get drug tested if you're on wellfare in Florida. Why? Fourth Amendment violation. I think you may run into that here. Also, 80,000,000 gun owners. That's quite a few, don't you think? And it does nothing to people who get illegal guns. It puts the punishment on me, a person who's never been charged with anything. Very unpopular, and unlikely to go anywhere.

JoesshittyOs:
le snip

My opinions are ridiculous in your opinion? Your opinions are ridiculous ... in my opinion.

I said the weed reference 'cos why the fuck not but think about it, weed COULD lead to harder drugs, which COULD lead to stealing, which means ... UH OH!

As for the rest of it, been there done that ... the other guys story included drug dealers shooting at the house ... for lulz I guess.

CM156:
le snip

Dude, I'm sorry. I know you put some work and thought into it and I appreciate it.

But I just don't care anymore, I just worked through 10 quotes, most of which where just beating a dead horse.

Nothing I will say will yank the blanky from the yanks and nothing they say will convince me that civvies owning guns will be a good idea.

Might aswell try to teach a bird square numbers, it's a fruitless endeavour for you and me.

Although, I consider "First off, the Second Amendment isn't a law. It's part of the Bill of Rights. Same with free speech, religion, press, ect" a law.

If I am wrong I care not a jot ...

Captcha: "that's right", too fuckin' right it is! As I am done with this thread, all future quotes will be ignored. Last time I said this I still got 10+ quotes ....

Jegsimmons:
why is this a gun issue?

it was committed by a psycho who would have killed anyway or gotten a gun off the streets, and it went down in an area that guns are not allowed, you know...a school.

these are freak fucking accidents and people who try and make this about guns (no matter what side) are just as stupid as people who blame video games.

how about blaming the guy who SHOT SEVEN PEOPLE!!!!

Nonsense. We must use this incident to push an agenda.

omega 616:

When I say most, I mean the real scum ... not the guy who stole your $10 wallet with $20 inside, your phone and your ipod. I mean the guy who shot up the island in Norway (I think), the people who sell sex slaves or Fritzl.

When a person breaks into your house what do you think they are interested in? Your life or what you have? The only reason I can think of that a robber would take a life is if you confront him/her.

Which is why they say if you are mugged in the street don't hand your wallet over, throw it left and run right or vice versa.

Killing for possessions makes you just as bad as them.

The point is that people truly don't know what will happen when somebody breaks into their home.

I know when I use to watch a lot of state and local news when I was a kid and up into college, I saw countless reports about people that had their houses broken into and they were murdered in their own homes, and by strangers no less.

So I would much rather people to be able to have a gun in their home to protect themselves just in case it is one of those times that it could be a murderer.

omega 616:

Oh yeah, I forgot about that thought process of "break the law you are nothing but scum in a pond".

Well yes, I do think that. People have no business breaking into other people's houses, there is no excuse and anybody that does it is scum. There is no defense for people doing such a thing.

omega 616:

JoesshittyOs:
le snip

My opinions are ridiculous in your opinion? Your opinions are ridiculous ... in my opinion.

I said the weed reference 'cos why the fuck not but think about it, weed COULD lead to harder drugs, which COULD lead to stealing, which means ... UH OH!

As for the rest of it, been there done that ... the other guys story included drug dealers shooting at the house ... for lulz I guess.

CM156:
le snip

Dude, I'm sorry. I know you put some work and thought into it and I appreciate it.

But I just don't care anymore, I just worked through 10 quotes, most of which where just beating a dead horse.

Nothing I will say will yank the blanky from the yanks and nothing they say will convince me that civvies owning guns will be a good idea.

Might aswell try to teach a bird square numbers, it's a fruitless endeavour for you and me.

Although, I consider "First off, the Second Amendment isn't a law. It's part of the Bill of Rights. Same with free speech, religion, press, ect" a law.

If I am wrong I care not a jot ...

Captcha: "that's right", too fuckin' right it is! As I am done with this thread, all future quotes will be ignored. Last time I said this I still got 10+ quotes ....

No problem

You're not "wrong" per se, but the constitution holds more weight than the law. Case in point: I can pass a thousand laws that restrict the freedom of religion beyond what the first amendment allows. And the first amendment trumps all of them. Ie, it's far more powerful and more weighty than a "regular" law.

omega 616:

Chunga the Great:
So if someone robs me, I'm expected to just sit back and let them take whatever the hell they want and trash my house? What happens if the police don't find your stuff? What happens if you don't have insurance? If someone is stupid enough to try and rob me, you can bet I'll put a bullet in their head. Maybe where you live, criminals are polite and will only take what they need without harming you or breaking stuff. Here, they will beat the shit out of you, break you windows, break into your car, trash your house, then make off with the most valuable stuff they can find. How about you come live where I live, then tell me guns should be banned.

First let me thank you, you just gave me what I needed!

You don't have insurance? Well aren't you just the smartest person ever?

Of course they will trash your house and break stuff but American's have the lowest value on life I have ever seen. Of course your computer is worth more than human life .... he says sarcastically.

I lived in a rough neighbourhood, did I need a gun? fuckin' noooo! I moved, like any rational person would!

Again, guns = safety blanket

How about you try and look at the situation without that blatantly obvious anti-American bias? I said it once and I'll say it again: Where you live =/= where I live. Things are different here than they are over there. Here, everyone I know owns or knows how to use a gun. Why? Because it's necessary. Trust me, banning civilian firearms would only hurt the citizens, and it would do almost nothing to stop the criminals. You might not be able to understand that, since YOU'VE NEVER BEEN HERE BEFORE. I don't get why you feel it's necessary to start criticizing the people of a country on a thread about a school shooting. Are you on a holy crusade to enlighten us lesser beings with your obviously superior knowledge of what we are doing wrong and how we should fix it?

Dr. Dice Lord:

reonhato:
stun gun, pepper spray, rape whistle, yelling. all methods that are non lethal and carry far less risk than a gun, not only that they also work just as well or better.

americas mind set on this issue is what one can only describe as fucked up. most of the developed world realised guns in the hands of civilians only makes things worse a long long time ago. just like with health care, when it comes to guns america is the retard of the developed world, they are just really slow to get it.

Stun guns, one shot only and if you miss, your getting murdered, raped, or something else. Pepper spray, can be ignored by violent perps, go watch some videos if you want; its not going to stop most violent people. Rape whistle, yeah, because that would help a woman alone at night possibly nowhere near other people. Yelling, really?

Also, from your argument that America is the "retard" of the world clearly shows that you're bringing nothing but bias and misinformation to bear on this argument, why don't you save yourself some time and stay out of things you clearly don't understand. Bad guys will always, no matter what the government does, have guns. Though the government can very easily take away law-abiding citizen's rights to own firearms. So how exactly does restricting gun ownership make the citizen safer?

It doesn't. It takes guns out of the hands of the responsible populace and leaves them in the hands of off-the-grid criminals. You may advocate a defenseless, helpless citizenry but American's will simply never share your timid mindset. Call us "retards" if you like, but it won't change how we conduct our affairs here, and the fact we have some basic freedoms here most of the developed world simply forbids.

And I know you won't agree, because the police, pepper spray and tazers are all a person "needs" to be safe.

So next time a violent criminal with a gun is breaking in through your front door, would you rather have a cop on the phone? Or a gun in your hand?

so since im not going to bother to respond to CM, farson or vryyk since they have shown they simply do not care about facts that only leaves you.

the reason criminals have guns is because citizens have guns, its that simple. not only does having guns so readily available for legal purchase make illegal guns incredibly easy to get it also forces criminals to use guns because their victims might be armed. why is it in the UK or australia robbery at gunpoint is so rare compared to america, after all they use illegal guns in america to rob a place so why not other places. it is because they do not need to, the hassle of getting a gun when it is not needed is to great. again this is a common point by pro gun people. farson and CM have used it many times in previous threads and it has been countered many times. australia is a perfect example of how taking guns from citizens (we had a massive gun buyback scheme, influenced by the port arthur shooting) does not make it so only criminals have guns. our gun crime is very low and mass shooting are non-existent.

InsaneInfadel:

irishda:

This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).

This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.

In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.

This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.

You're absolutely right. After all, guns are the ONLY way we can defend ourselves. Guys like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and movements like the Arab Spring were all ground into the dust by their respective nations, remember? Man, I still remember hearing about all that stuff and thinking, "Why don't they use guns to win freedom? Surely that would've saved all those people, yeah?" Remember kids, guns are the ONLY way to defend yourself and your freedoms.

reonhato:
so since im not going to bother to respond to CM, farson or vryyk since they have shown they simply do not care about facts that only leaves you

the reason criminals have guns is because citizens have guns, its that simple. not only does having guns so readily available for legal purchase make illegal guns incredibly easy to get it also forces criminals to use guns because their victims might be armed. why is it in the UK or australia robbery at gunpoint is so rare compared to america, after all they use illegal guns in america to rob a place so why not other places. it is because they do not need to, the hassle of getting a gun when it is not needed is to great. again this is a common point by pro gun people. farson and CM have used it many times in previous threads and it has been countered many times. australia is a perfect example of how taking guns from citizens (we had a massive gun buyback scheme, influenced by the port arthur shooting) does not make it so only criminals have guns. our gun crime is very low and mass shooting are non-existent

And we've pointed this out to you: In light of several factors (SCOTUS ruling, popular demand for them, public opinion, local laws, ect), guns are going to be a fact of life around here. Simply put, we couldn't do what ya'll did in Australia, even if we wanted to (And people don't, overwhelmingly). So rather than talk about a hypothetical America without guns, Farson135 and I deal with the real. Guns are here. They're here to stay. That's not changing anytime soon.

Now, if anytime what you did in Australia (gun buyback, Handgun bans, ect) becomes possible to do here, such as getting rid of the Second Amendment, that might change. However, gun rights are expanding in the USA, and gun control is being seen as a lost cause by many Democrats. VPC has little money, and Josh is selling guns (seriously) to keep them in the black. CSGV is frothing at the mouth and spamming people on twitter. Oh, and trying to decieve people about a CCW hoodie that the NRA is selling (which they have been selling since at least 2005). The NGVAC.... they lost a ton of money from the Joyce Foundation. And the Brady Campaign? 28,000 members. The NRA? 4.4 Million. For every one of them, there's one hundred and fifty of us NRA members who respectfully disagree with their nonsense.

TL;DR version: Your side lost. Move on. I'm not going to tell the Australians how to live. But there's no interest in gun control in the states, so it's best to just go elsewhere and find a country that will listen.

EDIT: Also, you didn't address the point that the non-lethal weapons you suggested suck.

irishda:

InsaneInfadel:

irishda:

This is no longer 1776, where the average man had the same type of hardware that the army did (with the exception of cannons).

This is 2012. No matter what you have, no matter what illegal types of arms you've gathered, I promise the military has bigger, badder, and more explosive. Attack helicopters, cruise missiles, missile drones, jets, tanks, artillery, planes capable of bombardment from the upper atmosphere; these are all things the military is more than happy to use to wreck a revolution's shit.

In the modern world, there's no revolution without at least some of the military on your side, so the argument that people need firearms to keep their government accountable with the threat of uprising is talking out of their ass.

This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.

You're absolutely right. After all, guns are the ONLY way we can defend ourselves. Guys like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and movements like the Arab Spring were all ground into the dust by their respective nations, remember? Man, I still remember hearing about all that stuff and thinking, "Why don't they use guns to win freedom? Surely that would've saved all those people, yeah?" Remember kids, guns are the ONLY way to defend yourself and your freedoms.

Yeah. That was my mistake for using such hyperbolic language. Also, that is an excellent point; violence won't help for every situation of tyranny. However, I do think there is a time for violent revolution, and there is a time for peaceful revolution, and the citizens of a country should be prepared for both.

LetalisK:

Jegsimmons:
why is this a gun issue?

it was committed by a psycho who would have killed anyway or gotten a gun off the streets, and it went down in an area that guns are not allowed, you know...a school.

these are freak fucking accidents and people who try and make this about guns (no matter what side) are just as stupid as people who blame video games.

how about blaming the guy who SHOT SEVEN PEOPLE!!!!

Nonsense. We must use this incident to push an agenda.

YOUR AGENDA IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD!!!!
*insert picture of zoidberg*

InsaneInfadel:

irishda:

InsaneInfadel:

This is probably one of the stupidest arguments against the second amendment I've ever seen. It's basically, "We shouldn't be allowed to defend ourselves because we wouldn't win anyway." So what if you would fail a revolution against a tyrant? It's better than letting tyranny walk all over you, not being able to do ANYTHING about it.

You're absolutely right. After all, guns are the ONLY way we can defend ourselves. Guys like Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and movements like the Arab Spring were all ground into the dust by their respective nations, remember? Man, I still remember hearing about all that stuff and thinking, "Why don't they use guns to win freedom? Surely that would've saved all those people, yeah?" Remember kids, guns are the ONLY way to defend yourself and your freedoms.

Yeah. That was my mistake for using such hyperbolic language. Also, that is an excellent point; violence won't help for every situation of tyranny. However, I do think there is a time for violent revolution, and there is a time for peaceful revolution, and the citizens of a country should be prepared for both.

Ghandi actually supported an armed society...i shit you not. He thought violent revolution was good as a last resort, though he himself was not fond of violence.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked