It's illegal for non adults to posses hand guns already & that also negates CCW. That's the difference between College/University CCW & high school & under. I didn't see/hear any mention of where the gun came from.
9th Grader Dies After Being Shot In Back Of Head
What really irritates me is how some people in this world feel it's all okey dokey to remove guns from everyone, because of one or two kids that got ahold of guns and broke the law. THEN they totally skip the issue of where the hell were the parents?
And then they miss the correlation between guns being used illegally and cars being used illegally. I betcha more crimes are intentionally committed using cars, per week, than by guns all month.
And then they miss the correlation between guns being used illegally and cars being used illegally. I betcha more crimes are intentionally committed using cars, per week, than by guns all month.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I honestly have no idea how to solve your problem although I am prepared to bet that your first step should be figuring out why Americans have such a hard on for guns, you are without a doubt the only country in the world where I have ever experienced the level of idolisation that you guys have for them.
Rob Henderson
Banned
George. I was being sarcastic. Just like YOUR post was sarcastic. The whole "gun went berserk and started shooting" thing. I'm praying to GOD that that wasn't serious. If it was, I can gladly look up some psychiatric hospitals in your area.
The police have not made any official statements regarding the original owner of the weapon.
Hmm. Trust me, if it IS registered to a parent, I hope that parent is sitting in the cell next door. However, "you betcha" is not gonna fly... Got any sources?
Monty... You're talking like I'm included in the hard-on group... I don't own a gun, no one in my immediate family does. But anyway... I really couldn't answer it. I honestly think it's some sort of complex that comes with the reputation America has for being "the most powerful nation in the world." You could probably get a book published on the gun complex in the US.
The police have not made any official statements regarding the original owner of the weapon.
Hmm. Trust me, if it IS registered to a parent, I hope that parent is sitting in the cell next door. However, "you betcha" is not gonna fly... Got any sources?
Monty... You're talking like I'm included in the hard-on group... I don't own a gun, no one in my immediate family does. But anyway... I really couldn't answer it. I honestly think it's some sort of complex that comes with the reputation America has for being "the most powerful nation in the world." You could probably get a book published on the gun complex in the US.
Last edited:
In an ideal world guns would be owned for target shooting or collectability & would be locked up with ammo stored elsewehere. In the real world most are owned for self defence & keeping guns locked & ammo seperate is OSHA for criminals, during a home invasion there is only a very short window of opportunity & you can't say"hold on while I go get the ammo & unlock my gun". I've read that in the Middle Ages they hanged horses that kicked & killed someone & that would be outragious today, yet horses have brains vs the inanimate object known as a gun, but there is always a Pavlovian focus on guns when something like this happens.
mmarsh
Active member
That arguement has been made repeatively here but its basically inconclusive for the US. You might mention Washington and Detriot with cities with high crime and strict gun control laws, but I could mention cities like Dallas, Miami and Houston with cities with liberal gun laws and also high crimes rates.
As for countries, its much more the other way around. Most modern countries (most of Europe, Asia) have strict gun control laws and low gun related violence. While the worst gun related violence are in countries that DO allow the private ownership of guns (USA, Brazil).
I lived my entire life in one of the largest cities in America (NYC, which incidently enjoys low crime and strict gun laws), and I can tell you that within city limits having a gun is a bad idea. The reason is people in big cities are under stress, have low tolerence for others, and anger very quickly. Giving people guns in a city like NYC is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.
Before the gun laws went into affect in the 1990s, I witnessed an idiot pull a gun in a dispute over who was in line first in a Burger King. There was another idiot a year ago who shot someone because he was talking on his mobile during a movie (in another city, not NY). The city is the city, not the countryside or the burbs. A stupid arguement can become deadly in a nono-second, it is simply not wise to allow normal people (not criminals) to own guns in areas where they are much more likely to use them against each other.
I believe in moderation. I have no problem with people owning guns as long as they are use some common sense about them. For example, bringing a gun to school is a univerally bad idea. I would have thought this would have been clear by now after Columbine and VA Tech, but apparently some people still dont seem to get it. The truth is the 2nd Amendment was written for a different era and is obsolete by todays standards. Society has changed since then and so have firearms. If people want to live by the 1789 interpretation of the 2nd Amendment then they'll have to go all the way and carry a flintcock and a powder horn.
The problem with the gun arguement in America is that both sides think their solution is best for eveyone. There is no one size fixes all solution. It is not accurate to say that guns cause high crime rates, but increasing gun ownership doesnt automatically lower crime rates.
Last edited:
NYs gun Laws go way back, long before the 90s & did little to stop violence, Guliani & his Police Chief came up with ways to curb the criminals & crime dropped. Yes you can find aberations in crime stats like Houston & Miami, but tough gun Laws are a wimping out by politicians looking for an easy fix, even if it doesn't work. Lets look @ a hypothetical situation. Bristol Va/Tn is a City with the State line running through it. Lets move Bristol to the Vermont/ Massachussetts border & run the Line down Main street. Vt has lax laws, you can carry concieled w/o a permit. Mass. is so off the deep end you go to jail for a year for a pistol cartride w/o a pistol to use it in. Now, if you are a criminal, are you going to break into houses on the Vt or the Mass side of the street?
Chukpike
Banned
Saying the Constitution is obsolete shows a basic lack of common sense. As most "westernized" European governments have evolved into governments embracing the US Constitution's core ideals.
Saying the second amendment is obsolete is saying the Constitution is Obsolete. It is not a living document open to interpretation at each successive generation. If it was, it would have been possible for a few in control to setup another monarchy. Which was actually discussed as a possibility with George Washington as King.
If the constitution needs to change there is a mechanism to change it. It is called amending it. What a concept!
With out this ability to change, the original Constitution would never have been ratified.
Europeans and those claiming to have "French connections" seem to think they have a better plan, while basically following and utilizing what has worked in the US. Some of their ideas could be better, but some just won't work in the US.
What I have seen of France suggests that it tends to run socialist and wants the government to "take care of them".
In the US both far left and far right have one major concept in common, neither trust the government.
People from other countries can offer a solution for killing with guns when they come up with a solution for killing. Since that is the real core problem.
This topic gets recycled every few months when there is a sensational gun killing in the US. There isn't enough space to discuss all the various ways people are killed through out the world.
Spaniard
Banned
Ok, Yes blame it on the Guns! I can take a Fork a screw driver+++++ You get the picture, and use them as lethal weapons,
even kill many before I'm stooped.
Does this mean we have to ban Forks! Utter Nonsence.
Weapons never kill unless YOU squeeze the Trigger:m16shoot:
J
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Your argument is somewhat too linear to hold up I am afraid, you are arguing the same half truth that the NRA keep pushing out ie: Guns don't kill people people kill people; the problem is that this holds true for everything that requires a human trigger ie: nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people, axes don't kill people, people kill people et. etc.
Therefore the problem with your argument is that using this logic nuclear bombs are perfectly safe in public hands and I am sure you would not advocate that.
The simple reality is that as something becomes more dangerous to the general public you need to start placing safeguards on how those items enter the public domain.
We license/certify drivers, pilots, ships officers to reduce the possibility that crazy bastards don't start using cars, planes, trains or boats as weapons and to ensure as much as possible that the users are competent. Why should a gun be any different?
Rob Henderson
Banned
Not true. Saying the 2nd Amendment is obsolete is saying the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. The fact that we CAN change the Constitution is PROOF that it is a living document open to interpretation. Because if one generation interprets it differently, they can AMEND it (as you cover below SO adequately).
I'm leaving this, because it's such a great explanation as to how the Constitution can be changed, and therefore, is NOT set in stone.
Not related to gun control at all.
You're right, it does get recycled every so often, and I almost regret posting it, but I wanted to show the folks who think every average Tom, Dick, and Harry should own a gun that it's getting worse. High school and college, they're old enough to make their own decisions (for the most part) but in middle school? That's just wrong. That shouldn't be happening.
Have you been reading the posts at all? I was being facetious. Get over it.
Chukpike
Banned
"Why should a gun be any different?"
Because, at least in the US, laws expressly deny the government the ability to regulate & control guns.
Your reality is nonexistent. We license to regulate, control, collect fees from the citizens. The government tests your ability to operate the equipment.
They do not make sure you are mentally sound or you would be tested every time you were to operate it.
None of this requires an in depth mental exam. So governments are not trying to "reduce the possibility that crazy bastards don't start using cars, planes, trains or boats as weapons...".
Also if governments were trying to "stop the crazy bastards" they have failed miserably.
Car bombs world wide. Pick a country
Ever heard about the USS Cole. Crazy bastard in boat.
Marine barracks, Lebanon. Crazy bastard in Truck.
Heard of 9/11?. Crazy bastards in planes.
This is a totally ludicrous statement:
"Therefore the problem with your argument is that using this logic nuclear bombs are perfectly safe in public hands and I am sure you would not advocate that."
Training to use and handle nuclear weapons is done to keep the user safe not the recipient.:smile:
Why do people think they can use stupid off the wall comparisons to make a valid point. It does not work.
They are still "stupid off the wall comparisons".
In other words your arguments are as crazy as your comparisons.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Why do people think they can use stupid off the wall comparisons to make a valid point. It does not work.
They are still "stupid off the wall comparisons".
In other words your arguments are as crazy as your comparisons.
Because that is all the pro-gun lobby throw out there, crazy irrelevant comparisons such as the "guns don't kill" one, as far as the rest of your argument goes:
1) As you so correctly said the constitution can be "amended".
2) Laws change to suit societies needs.
nothing is set in stone.
Anyway this isn't really a thread on gun control but one about an event so I will stick to my line about first having to figure out the problem before you can reduce the instances of this happening again.
(Please note I am not going to get into a cyclic argument with you on this, no one wants another 28 page thread full of pedantic crap).
Rob Henderson
Banned
Monty, I think we're probably aware of the problem itself, we just can't fix it....
Chukpike
Banned
Good, then we agree guns are not the problem. We need to look at social issues and what can be done to get parents to supervise and take responsibility for their children.
Government regulations treat symptoms sometimes, but rarely the original disease.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I agree guns are not the problem but they may be part of a solution.
Over all the problem is a social as it is with most crime there is no doubt in my mind about that but clearly what ever restrictions you have in place currently are not working and I sincerely doubt that making more guns available is the answer.
Chukpike
Banned
This statement is proof as to why the Constitution is not to be interpreted but changed through amending as the majority requires.
Every Tom, Dick , and Harry does not get to decide what the Constitutions means, it must be accepted as read. Each individual does not get to decide what is obsolete and what is not as their whims change.
The defintion of "living document" is that that the document changes without being modified or amended.
Some would like the Constitution to change on a whim or as society changes but that is dangerous, as who decides? It could be modified in a backroom.
The mere fact that someone thinks a portion of the Constitution is obsolete indicates it is not a "living document".
If it was a "living document" it could not become obsolete as it would constantly change and stay current with society.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Please post sources for your definition of living document.
You are correct, and it is in NEED of changing and becoming current with society. Unfortunately, the United States is full of people who think like you, and think that the laws that applied 300 years ago still apply today. It's complete idiocy.
Chukpike
Banned
I think that laws that are way over 300 years old still apply. Like for murder, rape, and stealing. It is to bad the younger generation like you, don't think they should apply just because they are old.:lol:
Edit:
To answer with requested source:
A living document or dynamic document is a document which may be continually edited and updated by either a limited or unrestricted group. A simple example of a living document is an article in Wikipedia, in contrast to "dead" or "static" documents, such as an article in a single edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica.
A living document may or may not have a framework for updates, changes, or adjustments. This type of document without proper context can change away from its original purpose through multiple uncontrolled edits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_document
Last edited:
Really? Who's the idiot? the one who thinks that passing one more gun law will make criminals obey? There's over 20,000 Laws on the books, yet crime continues. It's already illegal to murder, shouldn't that Law be enough? England imposed tough gun bans & crime is rising, the same Laws didn't do much good in N. Ireland. Why do you think they will here?