College & High School Shootings: What Now

[ThisYouWillDo]

Osme: apologies for the misspelling - it's a natural tendency for us Brits to change all Amrican Z's to S's when we Anglicise words.

Laffin even harder than you about the car statistics. I asked if cars (the vehicles to which you had actually referred) were designed to kill, not war charriots (I'd ban those too if they were still around) or any other wheeled vehicle in general. I mean, it would be a meaningless comparison to set armoured vehicles against guns to see which was worse in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

As for your assertion that wheels were first invented for military purposes rather than transport and recreation, I'm sceptical. First came rollers - they were only useful for moving really heavy objects such as building blocks. Then came sledges; you could move smaller things more freely and quickly, but not really useful for charging an opposing army with.

Then came sledges on rollers. Much faster, but still not much good for military purposes. And after that, grooved rollers - "nearly-wheels". Relatively fast and manoeuverable, but crap for chariots. Eventually, someone worked out how to make a wheel. A heavy object, made of solid wood, and cumbersome. No-one knows what it was used for, but it was too heavy for a lightweight chariot. Maybe the first armoured personnel carrrier? Probably a cart.

Ozme: if the clear majority of people were for gun control it would pass.

With all due respect, that's bollocks. No - I take that back (the bollocks part: I still have respect for you): if the clear majority of people who actually voted on that issue were for gun control, it would pass. But have you ever had a vote on that single issue where the entire electorate took part? I suspect not. If only 3 people in America voted, 1 for and 2 against, it would pass. If only 1 person voted, it would pass. Those are the clear majorities needed.

Or just one NRA psychopath more than all "pro gun-control" voters would prevent it.

Apologies again. That was perjorative language.

It's nothing to do with freedom: you can be free without guns: I am. It's nothing to do with the War of Independence. That argument was won 250 years ago and the overbearing British are no longer a threat to you. And don't try to tell me that, if your government took it into its head to raise taxes on tea without letting you vote on it, you would all rise up agaisnt it, waving your hunting kalashnikovs and hunting bazookas and hunting grenade throwers. There's no taste for revolution in USA these days.

But of course, your government isn't going to do that, so there's no need to have the guns that they would have prevented you from using against them anyway.

Thorne: Yeah, I guess that would be equivalent to my getting my impressions of English bobbies from watching Benny Hill. Not necessarily the best source.

Benny Hill got it just about right ... except for the dolly birds running around in just their knickers.

As for your other points, they are as I expected, and I acknowledge their strength. But I reject them, of course.

Thorne: It's obvious that you have a higher regard for the "sanctity" of human life than I do.

'nuff said.

Ozme: And your hyperbole no longer impresses me. If you can only repeat yourself and have no desire to argue against the points others make... why are you even starting the threads?

A little harsh, no? I think this is a very important thread. And I thank mkemse for starting it. He is, after all, perfectly free to do so in your country. The fact that he is finding it necessary to repeat himself could very well be due to the fact that he has had no constructive suggestions from the "pro-gun" lobby about what to do regarding the poor students of America who are being shot like fish in a barrel. Is their right to life ... is the right of any one of them ... worth less than the right of a bunch of Kentucky hicks or Louisiana rednecks to shoot the wings off flies?

Perhaps they have nothing constructive to say in this regard?

[mkemse]

Osme: apologies for the misspelling - it's a natural tendency for us Brits to change all Amrican Z's to S's when we Anglicise words.

Laffin even harder than you about the car statistics. I asked if cars (the vehicles to which you had actually referred) were designed to kill, not war charriots (I'd ban those too if they were still around) or any other wheeled vehicle in general. I mean, it would be a meaningless comparison to set armoured vehicles against guns to see which was worse in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

As for your assertion that wheels were first invented for military purposes rather than transport and recreation, I'm sceptical. First came rollers - they were only useful for moving really heavy objects such as building blocks. Then came sledges; you could move smaller things more freely and quickly, but not really useful for charging an opposing army with.

Then came sledges on rollers. Much faster, but still not much good for military purposes. And after that, grooved rollers - "nearly-wheels". Relatively fast and manoeuverable, but crap for chariots. Eventually, someone worked out how to make a wheel. A heavy object, made of solid wood, and cumbersome. No-one knows what it was used for, but it was too heavy for a lightweight chariot. Maybe the first armoured personnel carrrier? Probably a cart.



With all due respect, that's bollocks. No - I take that back (the bollocks part: I still have respect for you): if the clear majority of people who actually voted on that issue were for gun control, it would pass. But have you ever had a vote on that single issue where the entire electorate took part? I suspect not. If only 3 people in America voted, 1 for and 2 against, it would pass. If only 1 person voted, it would pass. Those are the clear majorities needed.

Or just one NRA psychopath more than all "pro gun-control" voters would prevent it.

Apologies again. That was perjorative language.

It's nothing to do with freedom: you can be free without guns: I am. It's nothing to do with the War of Independence. That argument was won 250 years ago and the overbearing British are no longer a threat to you. And don't try to tell me that, if your government took it into its head to raise taxes on tea without letting you vote on it, you would all rise up agaisnt it, waving your hunting kalashnikovs and hunting bazookas and hunting grenade throwers. There's no taste for revolution in USA these days.

But of course, your government isn't going to do that, so there's no need to have the guns that they would have prevented you from using against them anyway.





Benny Hill got it just about right ... except for the dolly birds running around in just their knickers.

As for your other points, they are as I expected, and I acknowledge their strength. But I reject them, of course.



'nuff said.





A little harsh, no? I think this is a very important thread. And I thank mkemse for starting it. He is, after all, perfectly free to do so in your country. The fact that he is finding it necessary to repeat himself could very well be due to the fact that he has had no constructive suggestions from the "pro-gun" lobby about what to do regarding the poor students of America who are being shot like fish in a barrel. Is their right to life ... is the right of any one of them ... worth less than the right of a bunch of Kentucky hicks or Louisiana rednecks to shoot the wings off flies?

Perhaps they have nothing constructive to say in this regard?

I have no problem what so ever with gun ownership, if person wants a rifle to hunt with, that is his or her choice, if they want a gun to protect their house and family i have no issue withthat either

What my objection is that virtualy anyone can obtain a semi automatic assault rifle or similar in a hand gun fro ms gun shop, the type of hand gun used in the recent college shooting Dekalb Illinois,it was a semi automatic rapis fire hand gun bought at a local gun shop
I see no reason for the average citizen NON gun collector to own a rapid fire gun that hold say 80 rounds the only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill, they are used my the military for that puprose, and collectors use them for display and most of them are not live guns they simply collect them
I do not believe for 1 second a person needs an assult rifle to deer hunt, duck hunt, bird hunt ect, not to mention i have never see an deer, bird, rabbit or any animal fire back , so whey an assault rifle, why is not a standard rifle alone not good enough to hunt with?? and why an assault rifle to protect you family and house a standard rifle wouls servce the purpose just fine
Woud I ever own gun, no i have no reason to owe one wouldi ever consider it if the need arose absolutely, not as of now I simply have no need ot own one

[Ozme52]

I have no problem what so ever with gun ownership, if person wants a rifle to hunt with, that is his or her choice, if they want a gun to protect their house and family i have no issue withthat either

What my objection is that virtualy anyone can obtain a semi automatic assault rifle or similar in a hand gun fro ms gun shop, the type of hand gun used in the recent college shooting Dekalb Illinois,it was a semi automatic rapis fire hand gun bought at a local gun shop
I see no reason for the average citizen NON gun collector to own a rapid fire gun that hold say 80 rounds the only purpose of an assault rifle is to kill, they are used my the military for that puprose, and collectors use them for display and most of them are not live guns they simply collect them
I do not believe for 1 second a person needs an assult rifle to deer hunt, duck hunt, bird hunt ect, not to mention i have never see an deer, bird, rabbit or any animal fire back , so whey an assault rifle, why is not a standard rifle alone not good enough to hunt with?? and why an assault rifle to protect you family and house a standard rifle wouls servce the purpose just fine
Woud I ever own gun, no i have no reason to owe one wouldi ever consider it if the need arose absolutely, not as of now I simply have no need ot own one

Many wheelguns (revolvers) can be fired far more rapidly than semi-automatic pistols.

To my knowledge, there are no semi-automatic pistols that hold 80 rounds.

And you're vascillating. So no one who is a NON-collector should be banned from owning such guns.

Better define that. How does one get 'collector' status?

What about shotguns? Multiple projectiles which scatter into a wide area... pretty indiscriminant.

What about scoped (sniper) rifles? They fall well within the bounds you approve of. Single shot, small magazine.

You're clearly one of those who think pecking away at my rights bit by bit is the way to go... and that's why I object to any sort of gun control. Because those of your type don't stop. Give them an inch, they want a mile.

[Ozme52]

Laffin even harder than you about the car statistics. I asked if cars (the vehicles to which you had actually referred) were designed to kill, not war charriots (I'd ban those too if they were still around) or any other wheeled vehicle in general. I mean, it would be a meaningless comparison to set armoured vehicles against guns to see which was worse in the context of this thread, wouldn't it?

Laffin with ya... BUT...

Main Entry: 1char·i·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈcher-ē-ət, ˈcha-rē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Old French, from charrier to transport, from char vehicle, from Latin carrus — more at car
Date: 14th century
1 : a light four-wheeled pleasure or state carriage
2 : a two-wheeled horse-drawn battle car of ancient times used also in processions and races

As for your assertion that wheels were first invented for military purposes rather than transport and recreation,

I actually said wheeled vehicles... specifically thinking of chariots, which in ancient texts such as the Iliad, are translated (by some) into English as cars. Yeah, I know it wasn't the context you meant the question but I couldn't resist.

Even the first definition of 'car' is the archaic use, today we use the word chariot... but it was originally a car.

So, the rest you say regarding wheels... probably true... but I think I snookered you on "cars". LOL,

With all due respect, that's bollocks. No - I take that back (the bollocks part: I still have respect for you): if the clear majority of people who actually voted on that issue were for gun control, it would pass. But have you ever had a vote on that single issue where the entire electorate took part? I suspect not. If only 3 people in America voted, 1 for and 2 against, it would pass. If only 1 person voted, it would pass. Those are the clear majorities needed.

I almost wish it were so. It would be good to know what most people think instead of what a few spokespersons claim.

On the other hand, I'm not all that convinced that people wouldn't just parrot what they hear from the current celebrities of the day. After-all, that's why the NRA used Charlton Heston... hell, if Moses says it, it's gotta be true.

So maybe it's a good thing the mob doesn't rule.

But my point was and still is... just because someone loudly proclaims that it's only the gun lobby that impedes the passage of this... well there are huge numbers of non-NRA folk who don't believe we should have gun control.

Or just one NRA psychopath more than all "pro gun-control" voters would prevent it.

Apologies again. That was perjorative language.

It's nothing to do with freedom: you can be free without guns: I am. It's nothing to do with the War of Independence. That argument was won 250 years ago and the overbearing British are no longer a threat to you. And don't try to tell me that, if your government took it into its head to raise taxes on tea without letting you vote on it, you would all rise up agaisnt it, waving your hunting kalashnikovs and hunting bazookas and hunting grenade throwers. There's no taste for revolution in USA these days.

But of course, your government isn't going to do that, so there's no need to have the guns that they would have prevented you from using against them anyway.

It's not about the assault rifles per se... but the 'worry' that the right to bear arms will be eroded. Take away assault rifles and then handguns and then largebore hunting rifles (no elephants in the U.S. ya know) and then any hunting rifle because we raise enough meat on farms and ranches for everyone... and... and... and eventually why do you even need a 'varmint rifle'.

I know it seems a ridiculous arguement... but tell that to my grandpa... but you can't... they took away his guns and then sent him and the family away.

[Ozme52]

A little harsh, no?

Definitely.

I think this is a very important thread. And I thank mkemse for starting it. He is, after all, perfectly free to do so in your country. The fact that he is finding it necessary to repeat himself could very well be due to the fact that he has had no constructive suggestions from the "pro-gun" lobby about what to do regarding the poor students of America who are being shot like fish in a barrel. Is their right to life ... is the right of any one of them ... worth less than the right of a bunch of Kentucky hicks or Louisiana rednecks to shoot the wings off flies?

Perhaps they have nothing constructive to say in this regard?

Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first?

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.

[mkemse]

Definitely.




Why must the answer be gun control. Warbaby offerred up corporal punishment. I could suggest better psychiatric services.

The fact the man used a gun is irrelevant. He was unbalanced, stopped taking his medication.
So what if he used a gun. He could have used a knife or a club, a bat or an axe. He even could have used a car.

In fact... a few years ago someone wigged out and purposely drove his car onto a elementary school campus and killed some children there. He was a psych job... but no one (and I have to admit, I was thinking about this case when I started in about cars, no one suggested we ban cars. It was an automatic. (laffin) But it was also a luxury car. Why would anyone need a luxury car? A car is for transportation.

But if I were to be adamant about this position, you'd say I was flogging the proverbial dead horse. Yet is it really so different than saying gun ownership should be limited, or categorized by the kind of gun? Before you say "intent" I'll remind you of the statistics. More people die to accidental vehicle incidents than purposeful gun incidents. Maybe we should do something about that first?

Citing these kinds of incidents as a need for gun control is about caring more about the issue than the incident.

But he also PASSED all the paperwork needed to get a gun, his stopping his medication etc is not relivent here, because he went through all the proper steps on paper work, his back ground checked came back all clear , there no a legal reason not to sell him the guns he bought which were from a licensed gun dealer, it was a legal legitimate sale based n his paper work and his clear background check, even the dealer was stunned to hear about what happened (so he said anyway)