guns and bullets

pandora

fife wrote:

I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?

Thank you

Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.

dunkman

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

No previous mentally ill issues or criminal record that would keep him from getting it legally as far as I know.

Im pretty sure he was kicked out of school or something for mental issues for a span of time.

that must not count :?

thats been pretty much most of our points through this whole thread... you can have your 'right' to have a gun if you want... i think a lot of us are saying, lets make it really really difficult BUT fair for decent law-abiding people to own one... and at that I'm going further and saying that if someone is on the street carrying a gun then it carries a minimum 50 year sentence... no question... even if you were holding it for your buddy while he tied his lace... also if the guns are registered i'd have a gun control officer who would have the authority to check your storage facility in your home and if he/she found you to be breaking the law in regards to storing of the gun then the licence to have it would be revoked... nearly 1000 kids per year die as a result of finding their parents gun in a drawer or wherever and then shooting either themselves or a sibling.

again... not remove the 'right'... remove the chance of someone a bit loopy to own and keep one.

Blockhead

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Your post supports my position much more than it does yours. All you're doing is begging the question, and suggesting that regulating things that can potentially kill people is the responsible action. Thank you.

That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.

Not it does not, I am saying you can't take things away from people because someone can not handle that responsibility. We are adults and we are in control of our own actions. Guns don't load themselves, or pull their own trigger. Should we have regulation on who can walk up or down stairs because some people choose to run down them, fall, and could potentionall die??? The point is everything can potentiall kill anybody. Space heaters are terrible way for heating your house and cause electrical fires all the time. Here in cincinnati a family died due to this. SHould we regulate who is responsible enough to buy a space heater??? She would employ a gov. worker to watch the family the whole time to make sure they use the space heater correctly. You are advocating for the Gov. to regulate everthing because any carelesss act can kills us... You can't stop death, murders, ect.. as long as there are messed up people in this world. Let me guess we should regulate birhts and only law abiding citizens should only give birth, that why it will cut down on crimes. A car can be used just like a gun can. A car used responsibly is a non issues. A gun owner who is responsible is also a non issue. Now do accidents happen, yes they do, with cars and gun. Guns are used to hunt for food, protection... in case you didn't know.

dunkman

pandora wrote:

Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.

so what? if you really really want one you'll jump through the hoops to get one...

because of terrorists flying into the twin towers its now really really difficult to gain entry to the US... but millions do because they want to... if a guy wants a gun so bad and he has to sit some tests, fill in some details, etc then he will.

wolfamongwolves

pandora wrote:

"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.

An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.

Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.

As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.

JonnyPistachio

I stole some of this from the other thread cause it was leaning away from the 9 yr old that was murdered and more into this thread...

Paul David wrote:

bottom line, Heidi, is that you feel you are safer with a gun in your house as you feel the risk of an intruder exceeds that of an accident. I feel the opposite. there are no stats or facts that will turn either of us the other way.

peace.

Sounds good Paul. I agree with you too… we’re not going to all agree, but I just feel something needs to be done. There are more and more mass shootings lately by crazy folks.

HeidiJam wrote:

Your just mad that you can't stand up for yourself becase you afraid it might turn into something physical. I think the definition of that is a Pussy Bitch.

But its attitudes like this ^^^ that make me wonder who is fit to own a weapon. Seriously dude, this is a passionate subject, and many people are voicing opinions, but you bring this to an all-time-low with your condescending shittalk. You seriously sound like you need anger management classes. I don’t even know Haffa, but we are all PJ fans here. Show a little respect.

Blockhead

wolfamongwolves wrote:

pandora wrote:

"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.

An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.

Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.

As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.

What is scotland's population again?

wolfamongwolves

HeidiJam wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Your post supports my position much more than it does yours. All you're doing is begging the question, and suggesting that regulating things that can potentially kill people is the responsible action. Thank you.

That aside, the equivalence you assume here between something that could accidentally kill somebody if used improperly, and something that is designed for that precise and unforgivable purpose, is an utter fallacy.

Not it does not, I am saying you can't take things away from people because someone can not handle that responsibility. We are adults and we are in control of our own actions. Guns don't load themselves, or pull their own trigger. Should we have regulation on who can walk up or down stairs because some people choose to run down them, fall, and could potentionall die??? The point is everything can potentiall kill anybody. Space heaters are terrible way for heating your house and cause electrical fires all the time. Here in cincinnati a family died due to this. SHould we regulate who is responsible enough to buy a space heater??? She would employ a gov. worker to watch the family the whole time to make sure they use the space heater correctly. You are advocating for the Gov. to regulate everthing because any carelesss act can kills us... You can't stop death, murders, ect.. as long as there are messed up people in this world. Let me guess we should regulate birhts and only law abiding citizens should only give birth, that why it will cut down on crimes. A car can be used just like a gun can. A car used responsibly is a non issues. A gun owner who is responsible is also a non issue. Now do accidents happen, yes they do, with cars and gun. Guns are used to hunt for food, protection... in case you didn't know.

Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.

For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.

wolfamongwolves

HeidiJam wrote:

What is scotland's population again?

I said homicide rate. Rates are proportionate, so the actual size of the population is irrelevant. (Though I was referring to Ireland's homicide rate)

But for the record, in Ireland the gun murder rate is 0.32 per 100,000. The US rate is 4.75 per 100,000

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

I stole some of this from the other thread cause it was leaning away from the 9 yr old that was murdered and more into this thread...

Paul David wrote:

bottom line, Heidi, is that you feel you are safer with a gun in your house as you feel the risk of an intruder exceeds that of an accident. I feel the opposite. there are no stats or facts that will turn either of us the other way.

peace.

Sounds good Paul. I agree with you too… we’re not going to all agree, but I just feel something needs to be done. There are more and more mass shootings lately by crazy folks.

HeidiJam wrote:

Your just mad that you can't stand up for yourself becase you afraid it might turn into something physical. I think the definition of that is a Pussy Bitch.

But its attitudes like this ^^^ that make me wonder who is fit to own a weapon. Seriously dude, this is a passionate subject, and many people are voicing opinions, but you bring this to an all-time-low with your condescending shittalk. You seriously sound like you need anger management classes. I don’t even know Haffa, but we are all PJ fans here. Show a little respect.

Why don't you quit cherry picking quotes and show what haffa said... Some of you people are truly clowns here and it is extremely frustraiting... Johnny If you are going to post that post then post what haffa said and my entire response post, and address what you don't agree with. If you can't stand up for yourself that you are a pussy bitch, is that wrong???

JonnyPistachio

HeidiJam wrote:

Not it does not, I am saying you can't take things away from people because someone can not handle that responsibility. We are adults and we are in control of our own actions.

I am honestly somewhat in agreeance with you here, but there are many things that the govt regulates because some people cant hanlde responsibly.

Also, many of us have been saying all along that raising good points and awareness might help rpevent horrible trajedies in the future without compromising the 'resposible' owners too much.

I just feel that even the 'responsible' owners should be willing to look at stricter laws if it means saving lives. And by that, I mean that maybe (these are just random ideas) they should look longer at peoples records before they can purchase one. Also, this might be very futuristic, but we have amazing minds in science and technology that might be able to create a weapon that only fires from a certain user.

My favorite idea is the OnStar tracking system on handguns -- or possibly a lock that disables a gun every few months that has to be brought to a licensed dealer to reactivate it. it sounds crazy, but it could be done one day in the future.

Moonpig

pandora wrote:

fife wrote:

I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?

Thank you

Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.

The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??

Blockhead

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.

For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.

Way to just side step and not address your illogical postion on regulation because some object can cause harm. By the way some people do live out in the wildreness and need protection from ANIMALS, not human beings. So nice try. You are right they are designed for protection.

pandora

wolfamongwolves wrote:

pandora wrote:

"wolfamongwolves"
You're just restating the same thing I questioned you on in different words. This doesn't answer the question at all. The point still remains that more guns and less regulation equals a much greater enabling environment for those who want to kill to do so.

An enabling environment.... to allow sane law abiding people to own and carry guns???
I think its time you stand your ground and announce exactly what gun law changes you are supporting.

Well, I think it's quite clear I want handguns banned. That's what happened in Scotland after the Dunblane massacre, and guess what? No more massacres. Yes, criminals will always have guns - they even have them here too, in a city where there is a lot of gangland violence, but where no law-abiding citizen is packing heat. Where not even the beat police are armed. Result: your gun homicide rate is fifteen times ours. There's your enabling environment.

As to "allowing sane law abiding people town and carry guns", you have still completely failed to answer the questions on that point I asked you earlier.

I don't remember it? Thought I covered my opinion and the questions.


And here in lies the problem

You want to ban guns...I thought that was the case.
No middle of the road, no tougher laws, total banishment to our basic right. A ban that would not allow those who wish to own a gun safely to do so. Rational, careful, peaceful people.
To me that is craziness.

A small light shines between us though
we are both against capital punishment

SPEEDY MCCREADY

Top 5 handguns here in the Good Ole USA?????

Glock...Austria
Sig Sauer...Swiss
H&K...Germany
Beretta...Italy
Taurus...Brazil


Fuckin stupid Americans....

hehehehehehehe

fife

So i was trying to find out the stats on how many guns used in crimes were stolen from homes but i saw this interesting article that i thought people might find interesting. now the article is from 2009 so it's a bit old but i am going to assume that this remains true. If i am wrong please forgive.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/280-mill ... on-the-way

pandora

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

fife wrote:

I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?

Thank you

Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.

The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??

Well I did answer as far as the little I know of the laws they are not and hopefully never will be there to cover an if situation. As far as they stand now I'm assuming there is background checks and waiting periods.
And tougher gun laws will not stop criminals or crazies from getting guns or carrying out terrible acts of violence.

UpSideDown

fife wrote:

I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?

Thank you

I would think the following:

1) Accessability, both legal & illegal
2) Effectiveness / versatility / ease of use
3) Intimacy level desired

Moonpig

Moonpig wrote:

pandora wrote:

fife wrote:

I have a question that i have asked many times? while i agree with most people here who have said that if this killer didn't have a gun he would have used something else, why did he choose a gun. Why do people choose guns?

Thank you

Not all choose guns, some actually poison their victims but of course that is not the subject. Tougher gun laws, which seems to be the answer for some here, will not stop the insane or evil. That is unrealistic. So what is the point to tougher laws?
All that does is make guns harder for the law abiding citizen to get.

The point of tougher gun laws is to save lives, like the ones lost on the weekend. You didnt answer the question that I asked you - do you believe in light of what happened that Arizona should take a look at it's gun laws? In so far as someone they deemed fit and responsible to carry a firearm comitted such a terrible act??

So you believe that the backround checks and waiting period served its purpose here? I am shocked and amazed that your insistance to be right is over riding your logic - to say "you know what, perhaps, based on this case, more stringent laws should be applied to ensure it doesnt happen again" would not mean you lost the debate, it would make you human for godsake.

I'm sick of this, I actually feel quite disgusted by some of you, as a species we are fucked if this is what we spend our efforts trying to defend, fucking appalling.

wolfamongwolves

HeidiJam wrote:

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Wow. Talk about missing every single bit of the point! I think what I already said is more than sufficient to answer this so I'm not going to repeat myself. It isa false equivalence for the reasons I have stated and your post doesn't prove otherwise.

For the record, Glock 19s are not used to hunt food and you know it. And the protection you're talking about is killing human beings. And yes, that is what they're designed for. Don't kid yourself.

Way to just side step and not address your illogical postion on regulation because some object can cause harm. By the way some people do live out in the wildreness and need protection from ANIMALS, not human beings. So nice try. You are right they are designed for protection.

How illogical? I'd already addressed that so not sidestepping anything. If you want to know my answer go back and read it.

Yes, some people do live in the wilderness - that is true. But is that what you've been talking about through the rest of this thread?! Becuase it sounded to me that there has been an awful lot more talk about criminals than about bears... You're really reaching, at this point.