Nissan 370Z Tech Forums banner

21 - 40 of 66 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
Bush is an idiot. Nothing suprises me anymore with him. Nonetheless he is right.

If the kid did not have a gun he would have used a bomb, or possibly drove his car through the quad at lunch time, who knows. Bottom line is the intent was to kill. I have guns, and I haven't killed anyone.
+1
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,164 Posts
Banning guns would do nothing, people like this kid would still find means to kill/hurt people. Even if guns were banned, criminals would still be able to get them so what's the point. There some 250millions guns in the country right now. There is no logistical way to ban them all, people will still have them and they will still be used. The only argument I could get behind would be a better background check for selling weapons because this kid had gone through mental health hospitals and been declared a danger to himself and others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
I've done plenty of research into "gun control" and all data points to the fact that regulating guns DOES NOT DECREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES. :zzz:
That's true. Criminal offenses do not have their only variable as gun possession. Did you also know that gun control doesn't decrease the rate of mental illness? That statistic is just about as relevant (since its always crazies that seem to be shooting up schools, shopping malls, etc).

There's more to criminal offenses than just shootings. I shoplift, that's a criminal offense. Gun control isn't exactly going to stop me shoving a candy bar into my pocket and walking out. So yeah, you're right, taking out guns isn't all of a sudden going to make the USA a utopia where everyone lives in gumdrop houses and dances around the may pole. Of course, it would make it a lot harder for me to pull a gun on the shopkeeper to raid the till (and perhaps panic and shoot the guy if he tries to act the hero) but hey....a crime's a crime.

However, if this guy couldn't buy a gun over the counter in a store what's the likelihood that he would have been able to shoot someone? I don't deny that its possible that he could have gotten one on the black market, but considering he was an antisocial loner that creeped out his classmates (and people on the black market don't exactly advertise in the paper) how could he have gotten one? Its not like he would have asked anyone at VT. If the guy you knew was into writing about killing people with chainsaws asked where he could get a gun on the down low, would you refer him to someone?

You can't completely stop crime. But you can do your best to mitigate it (which is the point of having laws in the first place). I can beat someone to death with my fists, but does that mean laws against murder aren't worth having? Clearly they didn't stop me from killing someone, so why bother having them? That's the same (il)logic that you guys are using against gun control.


Still, no-one's given me a purpose for guns aside from killing. I don't understand why I can own a tool for murder and its a-OK, but if I join an organisation for murder (e.g. a terrorist network) I get in trouble. A concept can't kill people, only the individuals in it. So why blame the concept? If I was a member of al Qaeda, even if I'd never blown something up or shot someone (maybe I only joined because I wanted tips on managing my beard from people who clearly have lots of knowledge of them) I'd still get denied due process and natural justice, while being tortured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
There are plenty of people in the United States that also share your feelings. Many of them live in perfect neighborhoods and never feel threatend, just like yourself. There are also the people who feel that they need the right to carry something to defend themselves with (I would like to add, most people who carry never need to pull their firearm) This is the great thing about the United States, the right to choose.
Now that's an out-and-out lie. You have the right to choose, with certain limits. Do you have the right to choose whether you'll bludgeon someone to death? Do you have the right to choose whether you can own nuclear weapons (that's still "arms", after all)? Gun control is no more impinging on your "right to choose" than any other law, aside from a historical concept that you should be able to. In the US' past, yhou had the right to choose whether you owned slaves or not. The fact that there are slavery laws - do you feel your rights are being impinged?

First off, I would like to say that you should turn in your beloved 350z. Everyone send it right back to nissan. I can't seem to think of any reason to own one unless you live at the track. You can't use the power on the street, Everyone should have utilitarian cars that are good on gas and are limeted to the speed on the highway. No one needs to go any faster.
I was waiting for someone to chime in with that.

Firstly, my car gets tracked about once a month and I don't drive it every day. I catch public transport to work.

At any rate, your rebuttal is specious. Driving fast is not a bad thing. Last time I checked, killing someone was. I'm not proposing people live an austere environment. But the gun's prime purpose is to injure, and if you do it with enough skill you can kill. A car is the opposite. Only if you drive without enough skill do you kill. If you're doing shooting competitions, you're training yourself to kill. Forget computer games, if Jack Thompson wants to get rid of "massacre simulators" he should be campaigning against people training on real weapons and not pretend ones.

I've got no problems with people having hobbies. But I don't think that hobbies that put weapons out into the populace (especially ranged ones) are something that you'd want as a society. I don't mind martial arts, since its a lot easier to run away from a guy's fists and feet than a bullet being fired from a gun should the practitioner decide to use it for illegal purposes. That said, I'm not a big fan of archery either because it gives someone that range and damage. However, it is a lot harder to conceal a recurved bow or crossbow than it is a pistol, making it almost impractical for robbing someone.


People have the right to protect themselves. During this time there was no 911. Even up untill mordern times in certain rural areas, there was what, a few officers maybe. As the population here grows, the need to carry will diminish, but even still cops are not out protecting the citizens, they are a reactive force to catch a person who already comited the crime. Untill yo ucan have enough cops to stand on every corner of ever street and in every room you are going to have things happen. If it comes to that, which i hope it doesn't, what kind of life is that, to be watched over every where you go?
There's no right to bear arms in Australia, yet in the outback (where our population is even more sparse than yours) its not a "cesspool of scum and villainy". We don't need "cops at every street corner" in our country towns, where there might only be a handful of cops, but I don't feel unsafe visiting those places. There are plenty of places in Europe that are the same, yet they're not exactly "no go" zones either.

Up until the mid 90's, beat cops in the UK didn't even carry firearms. And this was during the time the IRA was bombing the **** out of them. Yet London isn't a smoking hole in the ground, filled with corpses in a manner that would make George Romero turn away.

Is the US that different? We manage to cope without what you're talking about, yet we don't have the problems you envisage.

So either you're wrong about the necessities of everpresent police or living in an armed camp to maintain a semblance of order, or your country is full of the criminally minded (ironic since you pointed out my country was founded by them) that are only being held in check due to fear, rather than a sense of society. Feel free to tell me which....

It is unfortunate that people like this commit suicide, because just once I would like to see them stand trial so the blame falls upon them. Every time one of these guys comits suicide the media has no one to pin the blame on, so it is the guns fault, or video games, or tv or his parents. It is never the criminals fault that he did what he did. The tool he used is irrelevent
I am blaming no-one but the guy who makes the choice to do the killing. Of course, this guy was evidently a complete whack-job who may not have been in full control of his faculties. But I don't blame Beretta, Glock, Smith & Wesson or any other major gun manufacturer. They didn't pull the trigger. They weren't the voices in his head telling him to go shoot up a school. I don't blame the pistol itself - it doesn't fire itself.

However, the tool is relevant. The action requires two things - the operator and the tool. You can't remove the man but you can remove the tool. If the tool serves no other purpose than to kill, then what use does it have in a healthy society? Of course, you haven't responded to the above so I don't know if you live in an unhealthy society or not......so if your country is full of the criminally minded that are just waiting for the opportunity to **** your **** up then I will apologise and concede everything.

If someone trains a dog as an attack dog, and then uses it, I don't blame the mutt. But if that dog can't be retrained or repurposed into a loving pet once again, I've got no qualms about having it put down. If its going to remain unpredictable and a danger to society it needs to be removed. In the same way, if you can't think of a positive purpose for guns (maybe we can turn them all into starters pistols for athletics events) but remain a danger to society then they need to be put down too.

So far, no-one's given me a positive purpose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,719 Posts
:lol: Give it up, Alan. Guns have been around far longer than you or I. It's like a toll road or bridge; once it's in, it's never going away. Bottom line is that it makes money and power, the 2 things that seem to drive human behavior in some countries.
Hey I originally did say I didn't support implementing gun control in the US now. I support gun control as a theory from a "clean slate". :)

If the entire planet could do away with guns, then we wouldn't need a police force, nor support a military, nor have borders to guard. That would be the perfect world. But if humankind did away with guns, then other methods of controlling the rougher elements of society would exist. Certain freedoms would simply be laughable at that point.
I didn't say get rid of guns completely. Get rid of guns from the general populace. That doesn't mean law enforcement shouldn't have them. Criminals can always steal guns, but if they're all in the control of a competent law enforcement or military organisation it makes them very hard to get. And with fewer on the ground, retrieving them is a lot easier.

Its not like you can stop government with firearms these days. Even if you were to get a whole bunch of guys together with rifles, an aircraft with a bomb would kill them all. At best you can do armed insurrection, which still can't overthrow a government. Only a pitched battle can change government, and the modern military can blow you away without even putting a single human asset at risk.


I still remember a poli sci professor stating that the Founders believed the worst in humanity and the citizens of the colonies needed protection against themselves. Hence, they based many of their ideas for a new government with that theory in mind.
I guess that answers my prior question to Cerberus, about what kind of people populate your country :p

I'm thinking the reason gun control is a big issue in Australia is because it started out as a penal colony, and controlling guns was a smart and simple way to keep crime from getting out of hand. But I'm not pointing any fingers at history there....
It used to be legal to have guns. We used to have our "bushrangers", who basically were criminal cowboys holding people up. Ned Kelly is the most notorious, and somewhat of a folk hero for standing up to the "oppressive" police force at the time. But just because we idolise a bandit in the past (and the guns he used for his last stand are in the national museum, I believe) doesn't mean we need to have them now.

And by the time Australia was federated into a country, we had more settlers than convicts.


And Europe didn't start off as a penal colony, but they're in the same boat. A long history of gun control, but without all the anarchy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,584 Posts
Discussion Starter #31
That's true. Criminal offenses do not have their only variable as gun possession. Did you also know that gun control doesn't decrease the rate of mental illness? That statistic is just about as relevant (since its always crazies that seem to be shooting up schools, shopping malls, etc).

There's more to criminal offenses than just shootings. I shoplift, that's a criminal offense. Gun control isn't exactly going to stop me shoving a candy bar into my pocket and walking out. So yeah, you're right, taking out guns isn't all of a sudden going to make the USA a utopia where everyone lives in gumdrop houses and dances around the may pole. Of course, it would make it a lot harder for me to pull a gun on the shopkeeper to raid the till (and perhaps panic and shoot the guy if he tries to act the hero) but hey....a crime's a crime.

However, if this guy couldn't buy a gun over the counter in a store what's the likelihood that he would have been able to shoot someone? I don't deny that its possible that he could have gotten one on the black market, but considering he was an antisocial loner that creeped out his classmates (and people on the black market don't exactly advertise in the paper) how could he have gotten one? Its not like he would have asked anyone at VT. If the guy you knew was into writing about killing people with chainsaws asked where he could get a gun on the down low, would you refer him to someone?

You can't completely stop crime. But you can do your best to mitigate it (which is the point of having laws in the first place). I can beat someone to death with my fists, but does that mean laws against murder aren't worth having? Clearly they didn't stop me from killing someone, so why bother having them? That's the same (il)logic that you guys are using against gun control.


Still, no-one's given me a purpose for guns aside from killing. I don't understand why I can own a tool for murder and its a-OK, but if I join an organisation for murder (e.g. a terrorist network) I get in trouble. A concept can't kill people, only the individuals in it. So why blame the concept? If I was a member of al Qaeda, even if I'd never blown something up or shot someone (maybe I only joined because I wanted tips on managing my beard from people who clearly have lots of knowledge of them) I'd still get denied due process and natural justice, while being tortured.

What in the **** are you actually saying?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,739 Posts
Still, no-one's given me a purpose for guns aside from killing. I don't understand why I can own a tool for murder and its a-OK, but if I join an organisation for murder (e.g. a terrorist network) I get in trouble. A concept can't kill people, only the individuals in it. So why blame the concept? If I was a member of al Qaeda, even if I'd never blown something up or shot someone (maybe I only joined because I wanted tips on managing my beard from people who clearly have lots of knowledge of them) I'd still get denied due process and natural justice, while being tortured.
I have my guns for protection, hunting, sport - target shooting, collecting, and if for no other reason....I have a gun because I can........need more reasons?


You say a concept can't kill people, only the individuals so why blame the concept....... A gun in and of itself can't kill someone, only if someone pulls the trigger......so why blame the gun?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,304 Posts
Still, no-one's given me a purpose for guns aside from killing. I don't understand why I can own a tool for murder and its a-OK, but if I join an organisation for murder (e.g. a terrorist network) I get in trouble. A concept can't kill people, only the individuals in it. So why blame the concept? If I was a member of al Qaeda, even if I'd never blown something up or shot someone (maybe I only joined because I wanted tips on managing my beard from people who clearly have lots of knowledge of them) I'd still get denied due process and natural justice, while being tortured.
They're like Chinese trinkets sold at kiosks at tourist attractions. People can't help but have them. :biggrin:

Is the US that different? We manage to cope without what you're talking about, yet we don't have the problems you envisage.
Ah, but your country does have it's problems. Last I checked, you have pirates off your shores, a huge drug smuggling problem, and you have a ton of unwanted citizens including terrorists. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hey I originally did say I didn't support implementing gun control in the US now. I support gun control as a theory from a "clean slate". :)
I didn't say get rid of guns completely. Get rid of guns from the general populace. That doesn't mean law enforcement shouldn't have them. Criminals can always steal guns, but if they're all in the control of a competent law enforcement or military organisation it makes them very hard to get. And with fewer on the ground, retrieving them is a lot easier.
True, true. Unfortunately, there are those in positions of power that would sell stolen firearms because of financial reasons. Limiting the sale of guns would be a double-edged sword, making them a collectible commodity and still denying certain citizens to defend themselves and their property when they live far away from any law enforcement office.

I guess that answers my prior question to Cerberus, about what kind of people populate your country :p
It used to be legal to have guns. We used to have our "bushrangers", who basically were criminal cowboys holding people up. Ned Kelly is the most notorious, and somewhat of a folk hero for standing up to the "oppressive" police force at the time. But just because we idolise a bandit in the past (and the guns he used for his last stand are in the national museum, I believe) doesn't mean we need to have them now.

And by the time Australia was federated into a country, we had more settlers than convicts.
And Europe didn't start off as a penal colony, but they're in the same boat. A long history of gun control, but without all the anarchy.
**** our stupid immigration laws and the fact that we allow so many people from around the world into our country. Eventually, that kind of mass emigration into any area is going to create domestic 'problems.' Europe has had that problem for years with poor immigrants moving into certain rich nations looking for jobs. Look at the riots in France and the crime rates in Spain. England has a huge issue with Middle Eastern immigrants, but they've been the melting pot for most of Europe, Africa, and Asia for centuries. They may not have a proliferation of guns, but they definitely have their fair share of heinous crimes.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,584 Posts
Discussion Starter #38
I have my guns for protection, hunting, sport - target shooting, collecting, and if for no other reason....I have a gun because I can........need more reasons?


You say a concept can't kill people, only the individuals so why blame the concept....... A gun in and of itself can't kill someone, only if someone pulls the trigger......so why blame the gun?
YES,your the man.Plus, because were Americans,and we have that freedom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,348 Posts
Guns don't kill people!!!!!

Bullets do.

I've had handguns and rifles for the past 18 years. My first gun was a Taurus PT-99AF 9mm, which will hold 15 in the clip and one in the chamber. I also have Beretta's, Remmington's, etc. ****, I even have a Chinese SKS 7.62mm.

The point is, I love to shoot.....but I've never shot anyone.

Am I a good shot??? Break into my house and find out. I hope you look good in black plastic.

Would I like to live in a world where there were NO guns?? **** yes I would. My love of shooting is not so great where I wouldn't give it all up to prevent pointless gun deaths.

But look at the facts. This country was formed using guns. Without guns, Europeans wouldn't have taken over this land, and my relatives would never have moved here. But none of my ancestors that I know of killed anyone with a gun in this, or any other country.

We're never going to outlaw guns in this country, it just isn't going to happen.

I have nothing against semi-automatics either.....to a point. Those Tech 9's with the seemingly "bottomless clips" are insane and pointless. 15 in a clip is more than enough for target practice, home defense, or killing a few Koran carrying lunatics. Lululululululululululululu!!

Gun laws wouldn't have prevented this Korean Kook from killing anyone. He could have easily made a fertilizer bomb and taken out whole buildings full of people?? Oklahoma City anyone? Fertilizer did that.

And, if you've read this far, I'd really, really like an AR-15 with a sniper scope for X-Mas. They're just Sooooo cool.

So to sum it up, guns kill no one. Crazy people do. Guns aren't the best thing to have, but hey......there are a lot of them, and they aren't going anywhere. And if you're a rapper or a NBA player's bodyguard. Put down the 9, and you'll be just fine. :wub:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
35,304 Posts
Hey I originally did say I didn't support implementing gun control in the US now. I support gun control as a theory from a "clean slate". :)
I didn't say get rid of guns completely. Get rid of guns from the general populace. That doesn't mean law enforcement shouldn't have them. Criminals can always steal guns, but if they're all in the control of a competent law enforcement or military organisation it makes them very hard to get. And with fewer on the ground, retrieving them is a lot easier.

Its not like you can stop government with firearms these days. Even if you were to get a whole bunch of guys together with rifles, an aircraft with a bomb would kill them all. At best you can do armed insurrection, which still can't overthrow a government. Only a pitched battle can change government, and the modern military can blow you away without even putting a single human asset at risk.
I guess that answers my prior question to Cerberus, about what kind of people populate your country :p
It used to be legal to have guns. We used to have our "bushrangers", who basically were criminal cowboys holding people up. Ned Kelly is the most notorious, and somewhat of a folk hero for standing up to the "oppressive" police force at the time. But just because we idolise a bandit in the past (and the guns he used for his last stand are in the national museum, I believe) doesn't mean we need to have them now.

And by the time Australia was federated into a country, we had more settlers than convicts.
And Europe didn't start off as a penal colony, but they're in the same boat. A long history of gun control, but without all the anarchy.
I don't know about your country or others, but we obviously have an inner city problem with people who shouldn't even be allowed to have children. For example, just recently there was a deadly shooting on a city bus here in my city. Two groups of kids with the average age of 16 or 17 had an argument. Mind you, this was around midnight. I've been on public transportation at that time of the night, and it's not pretty. Anyway, one kid shot another. The suspect will surely be an upstanding citizen in gen pop (exceedingly sarcastic here) just like his father.

So I have to agree that something must be done about gun control and how many guns are floating around out there. However, I don't know what that answer would be since it's obvious that the 'bad guys' and 'less than cordial' citizenry can easily get their grubby little hands on the weapons whenever they want.

There are too many priveleges for the wrong people.
 
21 - 40 of 66 Posts
Top