College & High School Shootings: What Now

[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