Dumb arses and guns...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we get a little upset over the thought of innocent children getting
gunned down in somewhere that shoud be safe... and the only reason that this is not prevented is you all think as supposedly the leader of the free world that you need to have a small personal arsenal to protect your "freedoms".
Nutters.
Its not guns we have an issue with btw. Its the posession of
weapons that quire rightly only belong in the hands of professionals, not a hick with a driving licence and a clean criminal record (although a criminal record wont stop most of them anyway as 60% of US gun sales take place without a background check anyway).
gunned down in somewhere that shoud be safe... and the only reason that this is not prevented is you all think as supposedly the leader of the free world that you need to have a small personal arsenal to protect your "freedoms".
Nutters.
Its not guns we have an issue with btw. Its the posession of
weapons that quire rightly only belong in the hands of professionals, not a hick with a driving licence and a clean criminal record (although a criminal record wont stop most of them anyway as 60% of US gun sales take place without a background check anyway).
You make the assumption that legal gun-owners aren't upset at the murder of those kids. I am
You seem to make an assumption that more laws would have prevented the breaking of the existing laws that were supposed to protect those kids.
You seem to think that we care that you have "an issue" with us owning guns. Insults aside (and I seem to remember seeing the odd chav/skinhead, etc, etc, in various European countries in addition to our beloved 'hicks,'), your figures regarding non-background check sales is incorrect.
Not to mention:
VP: We 'don't have the time' to charge background check lies | The Daily Caller
In 2010, prosecutors considered just 22 cases of information falsification,
according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the
Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.
In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600
applications were denied on the basis of a background check.
according to a 2012 report to the Department of Justice by the
Regional Justice Information Service. Forty additional background-check cases ended up before prosecutors for reasons related to unlawful gun possession.
In all, prosecutors pursued just 44 of those 62 cases. More than 72,600
applications were denied on the basis of a background check.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its best to try and keep detached from the emotional side of things. We could look at having a ban on many things which kill people, alcohol kills people, both the drinker and others through causing violence and drink driving. It serves no purpose at all, so maybe it could be banned to. It would not effect me as I don't drink. But then I have to consider the right of those who wish to drink.
The most logical thing to do to prevent such a tragedy in a school again would be to have armed security at the schools, possibly armed teachers or even better a volunteer force of retired police/military etc. This way you make children safer in schools and you continue the freedom of the people to have guns, a true win win situation. Thinking back to Beslan in Russia we really need to consider the situation of security for our schools. I keep being told we are in a war on terror and such a big threat exists, yet schools and other soft locations remain totally undefended.
An interesting article here about the situation of guns in Israel and defence of schools:-
Are Israeli Teachers Armed? ‹ Jewish Preppers
The most logical thing to do to prevent such a tragedy in a school again would be to have armed security at the schools, possibly armed teachers or even better a volunteer force of retired police/military etc. This way you make children safer in schools and you continue the freedom of the people to have guns, a true win win situation. Thinking back to Beslan in Russia we really need to consider the situation of security for our schools. I keep being told we are in a war on terror and such a big threat exists, yet schools and other soft locations remain totally undefended.
An interesting article here about the situation of guns in Israel and defence of schools:-
Are Israeli Teachers Armed? ‹ Jewish Preppers
Last edited by Ronald Reagan; 22nd Jan 2013 at 13:42.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RR,
"The most logical thing to do to prevent such a tragedy in a school again would be to have armed security at the schools..."
I'm not sure how you work out that the above is 'the most logical'. It is undoubtedly one course of action. As one of the armed security could 'throw a wobbly', surely another course of action would be to turn all guns into ploughshares; that way no-one could ever get shot again.
I doubt that either is ever going to happen.
For what it's worth, I think that the US 'problem' needs to be sorted out by the US and, whether 'we' like it or not, it will be their legitimate, democratic, decision. Good luck to them! As keesje intimates (I can't believe that I'm agreeing with him twice in one thread!), if the Americans don't like the policies of their administration, they'll have an opportunity to vote for another one in 4 years.
Duncs
"The most logical thing to do to prevent such a tragedy in a school again would be to have armed security at the schools..."
I'm not sure how you work out that the above is 'the most logical'. It is undoubtedly one course of action. As one of the armed security could 'throw a wobbly', surely another course of action would be to turn all guns into ploughshares; that way no-one could ever get shot again.
I doubt that either is ever going to happen.
For what it's worth, I think that the US 'problem' needs to be sorted out by the US and, whether 'we' like it or not, it will be their legitimate, democratic, decision. Good luck to them! As keesje intimates (I can't believe that I'm agreeing with him twice in one thread!), if the Americans don't like the policies of their administration, they'll have an opportunity to vote for another one in 4 years.
Duncs
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Brickhistory
You could change your constitution. That's not a directive, it's a suggestion. It is open to much interpretation (see Scalia on the matter), so reinterpretation is also an option.
What I'd like to know is the justification for having such arms. Why do you need anything more than a revolver or a single-shot rifle or shotgun available to everyone? As I said before, "it's in the Constitution" is not a reason, it's a post hoc justification which puts the cart before the horse.
@ Ronald Reagan
Take a look at the costs of this. To have even one armed guard in every school in the US would cost about $7.2Bn per year (perhaps as low as $5Bn if they can be laid off during school breaks) in wages alone, adding costs of training and arming them. Where's that going to come from?
Then you have to ask whether these people can cover the entire campus - Virginia Tech had armed guards, and police were on-scene within 3 minutes, but they were unable to prevent the death of 33 people.
Finally there is the question of vetting the required 30,000 armed guards for both their ability to work with children and their mental stability.
It's simply not a viable solution on grounds of being unworkable and ineffective.
You could change your constitution. That's not a directive, it's a suggestion. It is open to much interpretation (see Scalia on the matter), so reinterpretation is also an option.
What I'd like to know is the justification for having such arms. Why do you need anything more than a revolver or a single-shot rifle or shotgun available to everyone? As I said before, "it's in the Constitution" is not a reason, it's a post hoc justification which puts the cart before the horse.
@ Ronald Reagan
The most logical thing to do to prevent such a tragedy in a school again would be to have armed security at the schools, possibly armed teachers or even better a volunteer force of retired police/military etc. This way you make children safer in schools and you continue the freedom of the people to have guns, a true win win situation.
Then you have to ask whether these people can cover the entire campus - Virginia Tech had armed guards, and police were on-scene within 3 minutes, but they were unable to prevent the death of 33 people.
Finally there is the question of vetting the required 30,000 armed guards for both their ability to work with children and their mental stability.
It's simply not a viable solution on grounds of being unworkable and ineffective.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT:
Paraphrased from Massad Ayoob, a highly thought of firearms expert here in the Good Ole US of A:-
Initially the police carried .38 Specials to deal with crime and criminals and civilians who chose to be armed carried the same. In the 70's and 80's police changed to semi-automatic pistols and shotguns. The armed public followed suit. In more recent times the police have added an AR-15 type "assault weapon" with high capacity, (30 round), magazines and the public have again followed suit.
The reason is simple. The police are the experts at protecting the public and, as such, have determined that the weapons they require to do so are a semi-automatic pistol, a shotgun and an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine. It is only logical therefore that, in the period where the public await the arrival of the police, the best weapons for them to protect themselves with are those the police would be bringing.
What I'd like to know is the justification for having such arms. Why do you need anything more than a revolver or a single-shot rifle or shotgun available to everyone?
Initially the police carried .38 Specials to deal with crime and criminals and civilians who chose to be armed carried the same. In the 70's and 80's police changed to semi-automatic pistols and shotguns. The armed public followed suit. In more recent times the police have added an AR-15 type "assault weapon" with high capacity, (30 round), magazines and the public have again followed suit.
The reason is simple. The police are the experts at protecting the public and, as such, have determined that the weapons they require to do so are a semi-automatic pistol, a shotgun and an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine. It is only logical therefore that, in the period where the public await the arrival of the police, the best weapons for them to protect themselves with are those the police would be bringing.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you need anything more than a revolver or a single-shot rifle or
shotgun available to everyone?
shotgun available to everyone?
I can simply because I can.
And "everyone" doesn't have to or want to own a firearm.
That is the beauty of the right guarenteed me and every other American citizen by the founding document of our nation. The federal government does not have the right or, as a practical matter, the ability to disarm me and all the other tens, if not a hundred or more, million of legal gun owners.
It is just one reason why there are some who want to do just that. They don't like the people having power that is not doled out by a government.
Criminals will get guns. Look at those nations where there is gun confiscation and/or extremely strict control. The crooks still manage to get them and use them illegally. Only those trying to obey the law get punished.
Seems a bit off to me.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The police are the experts at protecting the public and, as such, have determined that the weapons they require to do so are a semi-automatic pistol, a shotgun and an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine. It is only logical therefore that, in the period where the public await the arrival of the police, the best weapons for them to protect themselves with are those the police would be bringing."
Now, that appears to be a logical arguement.
Duncs
Now, that appears to be a logical arguement.
Duncs
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually PTT I said ''a volunteer force of retired police/military etc''
Also possibly teachers who can concealed carry.
The idea being to keep the system as cheap as possible. The US is full of retired military and police many of whom still own/use guns, I bet there would be many volunteers who would wish to protect schools.
What is needed is system that allows the great American people to have the guns they wish to but at the same time to increase the protection for schools.
This way the rights of all will be looked after and respected. To simply ban them is unfair to gun owners and goes against their rights.
As a Libertarian I feel there are already to many laws, rules and regulations out there, many of them pointless, all blindly enforced by the powers that be, last thing we need anywhere are yet more laws!
Also possibly teachers who can concealed carry.
The idea being to keep the system as cheap as possible. The US is full of retired military and police many of whom still own/use guns, I bet there would be many volunteers who would wish to protect schools.
What is needed is system that allows the great American people to have the guns they wish to but at the same time to increase the protection for schools.
This way the rights of all will be looked after and respected. To simply ban them is unfair to gun owners and goes against their rights.
As a Libertarian I feel there are already to many laws, rules and regulations out there, many of them pointless, all blindly enforced by the powers that be, last thing we need anywhere are yet more laws!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keesje
Re giving away freedoms to the EU
"No, we don't and have gun related killings of fraction of the USA, however you count it. That's why."
Really, that's funny, every time I read the UK newspapers I see all these examples where people can't do this, council take down kids play park, etc etc because of some EU ruling or law.
Re giving away freedoms to the EU
"No, we don't and have gun related killings of fraction of the USA, however you count it. That's why."
Really, that's funny, every time I read the UK newspapers I see all these examples where people can't do this, council take down kids play park, etc etc because of some EU ruling or law.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ AA
He's not justifying it, just stating the history.
Except the stats say otherwise: you are 2.7 times more likely to be killed in a homicide if you have a gun in your home than if you do not.
@ Brickhistory
Post hoc justification on the basis of the constitution. As I said, that's not a reason.
He's not justifying it, just stating the history.
It is only logical therefore that, in the period where the public await the arrival of the police, the best weapons for them to protect themselves with are those the police would be bringing.
@ Brickhistory
I can simply because I can.
And "everyone" doesn't have to or want to own a firearm.
That is the beauty of the right guarenteed me and every other American citizen by the founding document of our nation.
And "everyone" doesn't have to or want to own a firearm.
That is the beauty of the right guarenteed me and every other American citizen by the founding document of our nation.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well actually PTT I said ''a volunteer force of retired police/military etc''
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well PTT many can probably provide their own weapons!
A small scale training course with their local police should be enough, if they are retired police they should know a fair bit already, just some refresher training required. I guess in some situations off duty police could take part to hence they would likely have the already required training. With the need to vet them, if retired police it should be fairly straight forward, retired military a little harder.
No, no system is 100% perfect, but atleast my ideas would increase security for the children AND allow gun owners to keep their weapons. Simply banning things you don't like is not really a good direction to take a so called free country in.
A small scale training course with their local police should be enough, if they are retired police they should know a fair bit already, just some refresher training required. I guess in some situations off duty police could take part to hence they would likely have the already required training. With the need to vet them, if retired police it should be fairly straight forward, retired military a little harder.
No, no system is 100% perfect, but atleast my ideas would increase security for the children AND allow gun owners to keep their weapons. Simply banning things you don't like is not really a good direction to take a so called free country in.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT
If CCP had been allowed in Virginia and a few others, the outcome might have been a bit different, as it it wouldn't have been such an easy run for the people.
If CCP had been allowed in Virginia and a few others, the outcome might have been a bit different, as it it wouldn't have been such an easy run for the people.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any idea on numbers of volunteers you have there? As I said, you'd need a minimum of 30,000 to cover all the schools.
It's far from 100% perfect. In fact, it's been shown to not work at all at the worst US school shooting in 80 years. Given that, why on earth do you think it would work now?
As shown, it doesn't.
I agree, which is why I haven't suggested they be banned.
It's far from 100% perfect. In fact, it's been shown to not work at all at the worst US school shooting in 80 years. Given that, why on earth do you think it would work now?
my ideas would increase security for the children AND allow gun owners to keep their weapons.
Simply banning things you don't like is not really a good direction to take a so called free country in.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post hoc justification on the basis of the constitution. As I said, that's
not a reason.
not a reason.
You want justification for something that simply 'is.'
I do not have to justify it. It simply 'is.'
The freedom to make a choice regarding possessing a firearm is something that I, as an American citizen, have simply for being such.
It is not for the federal government to decide for me.
The Founding Fathers studied much in history to see what worked and what didn't when it came to having a limited government.
One of those documents studied was the 1650 (?) Enlish Bill of Rights which pointed out the "right of the people (well, the Protestants anyway) to keep and bear arms" as a hedge against a tyrannical prince."
Our founders, having just done so, realized that the situation could arise again. That no government was incapable of turning tyrannical and they wanted a 'militia,' in this case "the people" to have the means to check any such governmental move or, in the worst case, to overthrow it.
Such examples are rampant today - Syria being just one.
You may not like the fact that I can legally possess firearms.
But you cannot, nor can the federal government, change that fact.
It simply is.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not guns we have an issue with btw. Its the posession of weapons that quite rightly only belong in the hands of professionals, not a hick with a driving licence and a clean criminal record
Its ironic that our friends across the pond get a little upset at the debate of what has to be one of the biggest issues that directly affects their polulation. After all, they wouldn't shy away from interfering in the issues of other nations. Now why does Noraid spring to mind...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTT
If CCP had been allowed in Virginia and a few others, the outcome might have been a bit different, as it it wouldn't have been such an easy run for the people.
If CCP had been allowed in Virginia and a few others, the outcome might have been a bit different, as it it wouldn't have been such an easy run for the people.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And upon that we will never agree.
You want justification for something that simply 'is.'
I do not have to justify it. It simply 'is.'
The freedom to make a choice regarding possessing a firearm is something that I, as an American citizen, have simply for being such.
You want justification for something that simply 'is.'
I do not have to justify it. It simply 'is.'
The freedom to make a choice regarding possessing a firearm is something that I, as an American citizen, have simply for being such.
