View Full Version : Another school shooting
[ The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/26/02 ]
18 dead as gunman opens fire in German high school
Associated Press
ERFURT, Germany -- An expelled student opened fire inside a school Friday in eastern Germany in a shooting spree that claimed at least 18 lives and wounded at least six others, police said.
AP
Journalists stand in front of the Johann Gutenberg high school in Erfurt, eastern Germany, where a recently expelled student opened fire inside a school Friday.
The 19-year-old former student, who was kicked out of school several weeks ago, was among those killed, who police said were mostly adults but included at least two children. Police commandos conducted a room-to-room search of the building, where at one point during the rampage students were trapped.
Police had initially said a second gunman was involved, but told a press conference later that could not be confirmed.
The shooting at the Johann Gutenberg Gymnasium recalled the April 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., which killed 12 students and a teacher. The two teenage gunmen, both students at the school, committed suicide.
Shocked students who fled the shooting reported seeing a man dressed all in black roaming the hallways with a gun.
"I heard shooting and thought it was a joke," said 13-year-old Melanie Steinbrueck, chocking back tears. "But then I saw a teacher dead in the hallway in front of Room 209 and a gunman in black carrying a weapon."
"The guy was dressed all in black -- gloves, cap, everything was black," said Juliane Blank, 13. "He must have opened the door without being heard and forced his way into the classroom."
"We ran out into the hallways. We just wanted to get out," she said.
Outside the school, a police officer with a megaphone urged parents to register their children's names before leaving the scene. Groups of dazed and shocked students huddled in the street, hugging and crying.
A handwritten sign reading "HILFE" -- Help -- was pasted to a fourth-floor window and the face of a girl could be seen through the window in the classroom.
Police said they received a call at 11:05 a.m. from the school janitor, who said someone was shooting in the building. An initial team of officers arrived on the scene shortly after and entered the school. One of the policemen was among those killed.
Ambulances and police cars massed in front of the school, where several hundred children in grades five through 12 were in classes when the shooting began.
Sixth-grader Martin Streng said he was in math class when he heard gunfire coming from a classroom down the hall. As he and other students filed into the hallway to leave the building, they saw a man with a gun in the corridor behind them, Streng said.
It was Germany's second school shooting in recent months. In February, a 22-year-old German who had recently lost his job shot and killed two former bosses and his old high school's principal in a rampage outside Munich.
Gato_Solo
4/26/02, 12:11pm
And the madness spreads. :mad: :(
Yeah, that's very bad! :(
Over here things like that were supposed to be very unlikely, not like in the States, where these human catastrophes happen quite frequently, compared to other countries. Maybe these guys in Erfurt were inspired by likewise crimes in the US.
http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/WORLD/europe/04/26/germany.shooting/story.sign.ap.jpg
Help!
Gato_Solo
4/26/02, 01:00pm
Actually, those types of things don't happen that often in the US. In fact, statistically, they are most likely less than 5% of the population that's even involved in school shootings. Either way you look at it, though, it's a bad percentage...Imagine the headlines...
[/siz]
My god, when I posted first, I wasn't really aware of the scope of this shooting! Terrible, shocking, don't know what to say!
My further comment wasn't meant as a criticism of the US society.
I'm shocked by the the fact that the guy who did this was wearing black kind of ninja clothing.
That reminds me of that Leo Di Caprio movie that he withdrew after the Littleton shooting; he was wearing a black coat.
What you might not know, just today the German parliament deciced to tighten German anti-gun laws. What a terrible coincidence! :(
Justintime
4/26/02, 02:47pm
geez :( that sucks man, makes one think about their own mortality.
Professur
4/26/02, 03:25pm
Here come the gun-control advocates.
It's so sad to read about things like this.. it brings tears to my eyes. Madness, utter madness.
Gato_Solo
4/26/02, 04:05pm
Germany already has some of the strictist gun laws in Europe. Making them more strict isn't going to stop how that particular gun got into Germany, however. I believe the article I read said something about guns being 'smuggled' in from the Balkans and Eastern Europe?
Originally posted by Professur
Here come the gun-control advocates.
What do you mean?
I would post "ban gun", but i don't know if there's illegal to own a gun in Germany, is it Mephisto?
Mephisto: i guess he was talking about other members that share my opinion (ban guns).
The school shooting subject always brings up some sort of discussion about if it is good or bad that the goverment allow people to buy/own guns legally.
Gato_Solo
4/26/02, 04:35pm
It is legal to own a gun in Germany, but they have a background check that can last a whole year...and you'd do better to belong to a 'gun club'...
Ohhhhh i c, that makes my position stronger, ban guns.
I don't understand what Professur was trying to say. Anti-gun laws are already quite strong in Germany. Was he trying to be sarcastic? Don't know, fact is obviously that anti-gun laws don't prevent all potentially violent ppl from acting violently, I know that, no need to stress that very old discussion.
People are losing it more and more :nono:
there are no words ...
:(
blessings to their families ... and all affected
This world ain't getting any better. That's for sure. :(
Gun laws in Canada are extremely tight. You have to register every firearm, you have to have a license for the firearm, you need another license to buy ammo. You don't hear of many school shootings in Canada, although one happened in Alberta shortly after the one in Columbine one in Colorado, but it wasn't nearly as bad.
The right to arms is part of the American constitution, it's been there for a long, long time. The government at the time probably was worried of a British invasion and therefore encouraged Americans to own guns in order to fight them off. (I learned that in Social 20 in high school, if it's not correct, I'll give you the number for my teacher and you give HIM shit). :D
in my school of about 1100 people, probably small compared to some of those usa schools, but the worst thing happens here is the usual high school brawl, or 1 time a guy in my class pulled out a pistol with no ammo and started showing people.
Originally posted by Mephisto
I don't understand what Professur was trying to say. Anti-gun laws are already quite strong in Germany. Was he trying to be sarcastic? Don't know, fact is obviously that anti-gun laws don't prevent all potentially violent ppl from acting violently, I know that, no need to stress that very old discussion.
If I understand him correctly, I think that Professur was sneering at anti-gun law proponents, or at the fact that they (I am one) come out of the woodwork when this type of incident occurs and use it to promote the cause. Prof, correct me if I am wrong...
Professur
4/28/02, 07:51pm
Actually, I was sneering at the fact that the same incidents happen in loose lawed america and supertight Germany. It goes to prove that all the legislation in the world doesn't make a damn bit of difference. But the antigun activists don't seem to realize that and use incidents like this to call for even more useless laws, which only limit honest, lawful gun owners like myself.
Gato_Solo
4/29/02, 11:40am
I agree with prof...go figure... ;)
Luis...I can understand your point-of-view, though. Mexico has had problems in the past with the Chiapas (sp?) region, so your population may believe that banning guns is the easiest way to control extremists. My personal belief is that every citizen over 21 years of age, and not convicted of any crime, should be REQUIRED to carry a weapon at ALL times, and be trained to use it. On top of that, there'd be an annual requirement to go through re-training. If convicted at a later date, why, you give up your weapons at the time of arrest. THAT way, everyone knows who the criminals are... ;) and you also cut down on crime at the same time...Imagine a bank-robber trying to rob a bank when there's a good chance that every person in the bank is armed...
Shadowfax
4/29/02, 01:07pm
This incident brings this kind of violence a lot closer to home :(
God bless all the families and relatives of those who died without a cause :(
Gato:About the Chiapas issue, is not a big deal, since most mexicans actually "hate" EZLN (the group promoting some kind of internal war), and they are somewhat locked down in some jungles in Chiapas, the rest of the country is safe.
Guns are illegal in Mexico, and that's something i feel proud of.
However, there are still guns around there, but if you get caught, you will have to spend at least 6 years in jail. And as far as i remember, we have never had wackos shooting at innocent people in a school, office, or such places. The only shootings that come to place are those between cops and criminals (or between criminals themselves), i will not feel safe walking on the street knowing that almost everybody could be carrying a gun, no matter how strict laws are, the number of guns in the country will increase if they were legal, and it would be easier for criminals to steal or get guns.
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 07:00pm
What do you mean?
What does he mean? Over here, gun control advocates eat this stuff up. They believe banning guns will get rid of the "gun problem". But they don't understand that if you ban guns, ONLY criminals will have guns. Criminals do not obide by the law, so why will they pay attention to a nationwide ban on firearms? They won't! So, they will still have their firearms, while the law obiding citizens will have to sit by without the ability to truely defend themselves. You outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them. Plain and simple. Not only that, but it will take away 1 more freedom we have here in America.
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 07:02pm
However, there are still guns around there
See what I mean? They have a nationwide ban on guns. Guess who are the only ones with guns? Criminals.
Not all guns could be eliminated, because it was in the 50s (i think) when guns were banned.
Just to let you know:
There are no gun manufacturers in Mexico, if you want to get a gun by your own, you must buy one in USA, then attempt to cross the border with it (very risky). If you don't dare to get it on your own and decide to buy it illegaly, you will have to go and deal with criminals, that will sell the gun at a very high price.
Let's say that there are around 10,000 weapons in Mexico, all of them illegal, if the goverment decided to make guns legal, the number will increase from 10,000 to 10,000,000 in a very short time, what does this do?, it will only give criminals an easiest way to get guns to commit their crimes.
So you are one of those that think that drugs should be legal, since their current illegal status doesn't avoid people from being addicted to them. See what i mean?, if they make drugs legal, the number of addicts will increase, just because everybody will be able to get LEGAL cocaine in the drug store. The same goes for guns.
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 07:16pm
Not all guns could be eliminated
My point exactly! Those guns that are not eliminated are owned by criminals. Those criminals do not pay attention to laws. If a criminal breaks into your house in the middle of the night he will not have to worry about there being any firearms in that house to stop him from raping your wife and killing your 3 children while you watch. Because guns are outlawed, you will not be able to defend yourself nor your family. Banning guns makes sence? :rolleyes:
Ok, i guess you're not reading the rest of my posts, and you're not understanding why it is better to have a small amount of illegal weapons than a huge quantity of legal ones.
And yes, i still think that it is better to have guns banned.
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 07:35pm
I don't think you even started to read my post! You will not be able to defend yourself with firearms being banned.
Let's suppose that i have a gun, and i have a wife and a couple of kids.
If i had a gun in my house, i should have it out of reach of my children, to avoid them from get themselves killed.
Now, let's say that a criminal silently breaks into my house in the night while i'm sleeping, by the time i'm getting "my gun" i will probably be against the barrel of the criminal's gun.
Or tell me, are you one of those that sleep with a loaded gun at the left side of the bed?
I would never do that with children in my house.
Your gun....5 meters from you, a criminal pointing at you, what do you do?
Ohhh, but you have a gun to protect yourself **sarcasm**
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 08:00pm
Better yet, you teach your kids the danger and proper, safe handling of firearms. I grew up around guns. With real bullets :eek: . Having guns around kids does not mean they will hurt themselves. It's up to what and how you teach them.
They do make safes to keep kids away from firearms. Safes that open quick and easily. You can mount one under your bed. You can put one in or on a nightstand next to your bed within arms length. Nobody but those who know the code can get in the safe.
And if you're leaving your house so compromisable that an intruder can break in silently, undetected, then that's another issue in itself.
Now, let's say that a criminal silently breaks into my house in the night while i'm sleeping, by the time i'm getting "my gun" i will probably be against the barrel of the criminal's gun.
Nope. You might. Not me.
So I should give up my means to defend myself because a criminal MIGHT get my gun in addition to the one he already has?
?( I'm a little confused as to your logic here. ?(
I guess those kids that open fire in a school are taught how to handle a gun too.
Having guns doesn't reduce the criminality rates, like you said and i said, criminals doesn't follow the law. And there will always be criminals, it doesn't matter if you think that you're safer owning a gun, you're not.
Wearing a gun is also illegal in many places, and since most crimes take place out of your house, how does a gun helps you there? (let's remember that criminals do not obey the law, so they carry weapons in the street anyway).
(old US news) A guy that bought a gun legally, and then someday he decided to take the gun to the office and open fire there.
(repeatedly US news) A children stole a gun from his parents, he takes the gun to his school and open fire.
(yet another US news) A children kill himself when he was playing with a gun.
Endless stories.....none of them had happened in Mexico, why?, because guns are illegal.
No single person should own a gun, only military, police and such should have them, that's what they are for, to protect you, if your neighborhood is unsafe and somebody can break into your house even if you get to notice him....then that's another issue in itself (consider to move on). ;)
I hate to hear of such news. No sane person could approve of these types of crimes.
However, the price we pay for freedom is innocent lives, plain and simple. If someone can't accept this, I encourage him or her to move to a country that has a government that will "take care of you", as if this were possible even if they had intentions of doing such.
Police in the U.S. are not bound legally to defend you. You call 911, if they don't respond, there is no recourse your family can take against them after you're dead. There have been many cases in our courts that have borne this out.
It is up to every man here to safeguard his home and loved ones to the best of his ability. It is cowardice to leave such an important duty to someone else.
The reason our country's founders thought it such a fundamental right (gun ownership) wasn't just to fight the British. It was to ensure that the people would be able to reclaim their liberty if our government became similar to the one in England, or worse. There are several arguments one could make that it already is in many ways, but this has mainly been done voluntarily on the people's (sheeple's) part. Much of the citizenry of the U.S. are liberal buffoons who believe the government really has their best interests at heart and will "take care of them", "make their lives better", and other such rubbish. I truly believe they see the government as a saviour. Flawed thinking.
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 08:41pm
Having guns doesn't reduce the criminality rates
Oh, you wanna talk stats now?
Rates per 100,000
Country------Homicide---Rate--firearms
South Africa--75.30----------26.60
Colombia------64.60----------50.60
Estonia-------28.21-----------8.07
Brazil--------19.04----------10.58
Mexico--------17.58-----------9.88
Philippines---16.20-----------3.50
Taiwan---------8.12-----------0.97
N. Ireland-----6.09-----------5.24
United States--5.70-----------3.72
Check this out. The homicide rate for tthe United Sates is 5.7/100,000 overall and 3.72/100,000 for firearms specific homicides.
Now let's compare that to your gun free Mexico. A homicide rate of 17.58/100,000 overall and 9.88/100,000 for firearm specific homicides.
You must be awefully proud.
Here's my source (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html ).
Louis, I ask you to read the following objectively and with a truly open mind.
I'm a little north of you, here in Texas, where it IS legal to carry a gun. We have what is referred to here as a "shall issue" clause whereby if we want to carry a gun and we have no criminal history, we can easily get the proper permit.
If you check, you'll find that anywhere lawful civilians are given the right to carry guns, the violent crime rate invariably DOES go down(dramatically in fact). This is well documented in Dr. Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime"
It also stands to reason: If the sheep have teeth, the wolves leave them alone.
This isn't only a U.S. phenomenon...If you look at the statistics from Australia and England, the violent crime rate has risen proportionaly to how strict their gun control laws become.
Conversely, in countries like Switzerland, where citizens are required to be armed, the violent crime rate is much lower. Makes sense, doesn't it?
** giving up on the gun discussion **
In my country guns are illegal anyway, i'm happy with it.
I can't do a single thing to make guns illegal in your country, just as i can't do a single thing to avoid teenagers and insane people from going to their school/job and open fire killing innocent people.
Live safely in your house (protected by your gun), and be affraid when you leave your children at their school, or when you get to your office.
My 0.02
Another thing......
Good parenting will prevent this sort of thing from happening. If you have kids and don't pay attention to them, lead them and instruct them in what is acceptable and what is not (they watch everything you do, so you can't just tell them one thing and do another), and don't discipline them, this is the result. So many people have kids, and it's like a hobby they lose interest in. They stand on shifting sand, they can offer no guidance because they have none for themselves.
That's the point you don't seem to get, Louis...I'm sitting here, at my office, with a legally concealed pistol behind my hip and the skill to use it effectively.
Psychos exist, regardless of how strict the gun laws are. The recent attrocity in Germany illustrated that dramatically.
Those same psychos could come in your office and kill you. But they won't do it here...
Seriously consider it.
greenfreak
4/29/02, 09:01pm
Originally posted by MitchSchaft
Better yet, you teach your kids the danger and proper, safe handling of firearms. I grew up around guns. With real bullets :eek: . Having guns around kids does not mean they will hurt themselves. It's up to what and how you teach them.
My father taught me, along with my siblings, to shoot rifles and pistols at a young age. We were taught to respect the power of firearms, not fear them. The guns were locked in one place, the ammo in another. My Dad's pistol that he carried (with permit) was locked in his bedroom in a metal box with a combination and key lock. To my knowledge, he never had to use it at home.
Mitch, he also had a bumper sticker on his car that said, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" :)
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 09:10pm
It's better to have one and not need it, than to need one and not have it. Your father was probably one of the few in this country that care. Same with mine.
Luis, we're not feeding you BS. We're not arguing for the sake of argument.
Mitch: I know, and believe me, i see your points, and i can clearly see why there should be the need of having guns. However, in my personal opinion, those reasons are just not enough to think that guns should be legal. And by the way you think i guess that you're not seeing my reasons of why they should be illegal.
As in almost every subject, there will always be pros and cons. And there will always be people defending their point of view.
I remember a similar "guns: legal or illegal" thread in a mexican forum, most of the members in there agreeded (?) that guns should be kept illegal.
You should consider it too.
MitchSchaft
4/29/02, 09:34pm
Personal opinions and facts are hard to mix together. It might be your personal opinion that getting rid of firearms will deplete violent crime. But, it is a fact that where there are more guns, there is less violent crime.
Did you not take a look at the statistics I showed you? Look the statistics for Australia and the UK where firearms where completely banned nationwide. Then look at what happened to violent crimes afterwards.
You said it yourself. Criminals do not obey laws. That's a known fact. If they did obey laws, then they would not be criminals. Once again, by banning guns, all that is being accomplished is you giving criminals a free pass to commit violent crimes. Because they will not need to worry about you, the law biding citizen, to have such a weapon on your person at any given time to use against them to curb their efforts of a violent crime against you. Criminals will have guns and you won't because you are obeying the law.
MitchSchaft
5/01/02, 06:59pm
By John R. Lott Jr.
Wall Street Journal
4/30/2002
Sixteen people were killed during Friday's school shooting in Germany. This follows the killing of 14 regional legislators in Zug, a Swiss Canton, last September, and the massacre of eight city council members in a Paris suburb last month. The three worst public shootings in the Western world during the past year all occurred in Europe, whose gun laws are exactly what gun-control advocates want the U.S. to adopt. Indeed, all three occurred in gun-free “safe zones.”
Germans who wish to get hold of a hunting rifle must undergo checks that can last a year, while those wanting a gun for sport must be a member of a club and obtain a license from the police. The French must apply for gun permits, which are granted only after an exhaustive background and medical record check and demonstrated need, with permits only valid for three years. Even Switzerland’s once famously liberal laws have become tighter. Swiss federal law now permits gun permits to only those who can demonstrate in advance a need for a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precisely specified danger.
The problem with such laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them, leaving potential victims defenseless. The U.S. has shown that making guns more available is actually a better formula for law and order.
The U.S. has seen a major change from 1985 when just eight states had the most liberal right-to-carry laws, which automatically grant permits once applicants pass a criminal background check, pay their fees, and, when required, complete a training class. Today the total is 33 states. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78% in states that passed such laws.
In Europe, by contrast, violent crime is rising. Many factors are responsible, but it’s clear that strict gun control laws aren’t helping.
In 1996, Britain banned handguns. The ban was so tight that even shooters training for the Olympics were forced to go to other countries to practice. In the six years since the ban, gun crimes have risen by an astounding 40%. Britain now leads the U.S. by a wide margin in robberies and aggravated assaults. Although murder and rape rates are still lower than in the U.S., the difference is shrinking quickly. Dave Rogers, vice chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said that, despite the ban, “the underground supply of guns does not seem to have dried up at all.”
Australia also passed severe gun restrictions in 1996, banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively. In the subsequent four years, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24%, and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%.
And both Britain and Australia have been thought to be ideal places for gun control because they are surrounded by water, making gun smuggling relatively difficult. By contrast gun-smuggling is much easier on the Continent or in the U.S.
Another inconvenient fact is frequently ignored by gun control advocates: Many countries with high homicide rates have gun bans. It is hard to think of a much more draconian police state than the former Soviet Union, with a ban on guns that dated back to the communist revolution. Yet newly released data show that from 1976 to 1985 the USSR’s homicide rate was between 21% and 41% higher than that of the U.S.
Many French politicians complained during their presidential election that the shooting in Paris meant “It’s getting like in America, and we don’t want to see that here.” Americans may draw a different lesson from the evidence, and hope that they don’t become more like the Europeans.
Mr. Lott is a resident scholar a the American Enterprise Institute and the author of “More Guns, Less Crime” (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
Rotten Rob
5/06/02, 07:56pm
Mitch,
Your "statistics" are flawed, and I fear they are leading you to incorrect conclusions. I followed your "source" link to the statistics you posted. I then followed the link from that source to the studies upon which those statistics were derived. What did I find? The following:
The statistics for the United States and for Mexico were from different studies, taken several years apart.
The statistics were acknowledged as incomplete, and not from sources that reliably document all incidents being studied.
The publishers of that study warned, NO FEWER THAN 4 TIMES, that conclusions must not be drawn from these flawed and incomplete studies, and that more scientific studies were in progress.
And here's the real hoot: The total results of their study confirmed that proliferation of firearms in upper-middle class societies DO INDEED CORRESPOND TO INCREASED FIREARM RELATED CRIME IN THOSE SAME COUNTRIES. Go figure.
But as the publishers of that study warned, the study is flawed and incomplete, so no conclusions should be drawn from it.
I guess Luis already knows from gut feeling what the statistic jugglers will eventually prove, no?
Also, Mitch, you point to some countries with gun control, and rising crime rates and say "See? More gun control equals more crime!" How lame is that? Is it just possible that crime rates were already on the rise, which prompted the passing of stricter gun control?
If I were to play your statistics game, I could easily point out that just when England passed sweeping Food Processing Regulations several years ago, violent crime increased. Therefor, more food regulation obviously equals more crime. Easy, huh? I can assure you my studies and "sources" would be up to date at the very least, and complete as well.
Why no mention of Japan? They have draconian and strict arms laws AND low violent crime rate. How could that be? Did you know it's possible to name as many countries with strict control and low crime as it is to name countries with sloppy control and low crime? That applies for states in the United States as well.
Just something for you to chew on (other than Luis' arse).
RR
outside looking in
5/06/02, 11:52pm
wow, nice first post. :rolleyes: ;) :D :headbang:
(not sure which smiley is appropriate).
Welcome!!!
BTW, where are you from ? (i would guess that you're not from usa)
outside looking in
5/07/02, 01:25am
ya think? ;)
interesting thread mitch, but i don't see how the massive rise in assult crime in the uk has any relation to the strict restictions on firearms.
our laws were very tight as it was, the further restrictions merely tightened pistol legislation following a shooting at a primary school. we may have raising aggravated burglary and assault but they may well not be gun related.
the prospect of legal gun owners having firearms for protection has not helped in the school shootings in the us. the reality is that for all the legal guns sold and stored safely an responsibly there are as many idiots with illegal weapons.
some might argue that it is the us culture of guns that is informing the uk crime surge through tv, film and music.
Gato_Solo
5/07/02, 12:13pm
Japan, for all it's overtones in your post, is not as peaceful as you'd believe. The crime in Japan is, 99% of the time, organized crime. The idiot street thugs in other parts of the world are just that...idiot thugs. They have no aims above thrills, or personal wealth. That's why they get caught, and that's why they go to jail. NEVER confuse organization with low crime.
outside looking in
5/07/02, 03:07pm
no comment.
Rotten Rob
5/08/02, 04:58pm
outside looking in - I think all of those smileys apply, to some extent. As for this being my first post, I should admit I'm not here by coincidence. Neither is Mitch, I fear.
See this link for an explanation:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=65dbb491548064ef7c30623397dabcff&threadid=111340
Mitch, I can see your eagerness to start and participate in this kind of debate, but please don't just parrot what others tell you. Just try speaking from your heart - in your own words. If you want to sling statistics, just be aware that anyone can make numbers say whatever they wish. You might also take a look at your reasoning for doing so. Do you just wish to argue for fun? Or do you intend to educate? Or are you just stirring up shit?
Gato, Luis, et al., - Howdy :)
As for the comment regarding Japan: Please note that I said "violent" crime, not crime in general. I would have to agree that Japan has it's share of organized crime - and white collar crime. They rival the U.S. in that regard. The subject, however, was violent crime - gun related crimes in general. Being smart enough to not get caught has nothing to do with tallying up figures on gun related crime. Mob gun crimes and street punk gun crimes tend to leave the same bullet filled corpses around for the counting - even if the punks are always getting caught.
As for where I am from, you guessed correctly and incorrectly. I am not "from" the U.S., but I do currently reside there.
Best to you,
RR
(Nice site here, btw)
MitchSchaft
5/08/02, 07:57pm
Dude, you blew my cover! :eek:
Yes, I am a secret spy working for the greater cause... :cool:
I am a n00b when it comes to arguing this subject. I decided to make this thread my first attempt.
You'll see that I was speaking my heart throughout the entire post except when I brought up the statistics. As far as parroting other people; there are only a few ways to say things. As many people as there are that have argued this subject before me, it's not possible to come up with original material. That doesn't mean I don't have the right to try and spread the word the best I can.
I don't like dealing with statistics, but they're the only way sometimes. Statistics can be flawed, some aren't. Everybody will find a way to disbelieve anything if they want to.
America is one of the most diverse societies in the world. Getting rid of guns in this country will do nothing but back-up my arguments for keeping them. It is nothing like the UK. Some parts might be just as tame or less tame and there are more parts that are beyond your belief.
This is a 2 sided argument. It's an issue of personal freedoms and the right to defend myself with deadly force. And unless you live in America, then you don't understand freedom the way we do. Most people in America don't understand it either, so let's not argue that.
I'm not gonna repeat myself and I also will not back down. If you can make an argument for why they should be banned, then by all means try me.
MitchSchaft
5/08/02, 08:13pm
If you guys wanna see what SkySlash is up to, he posts there pretty often.
Originally posted by Rotten Rob
I'm not here by coincidence. Neither is Mitch, I fear.
I just wanted to reiterate for all who don't know that this thread is not the sole reason that MitchShaft is at this forum, he is one who argued for a forum for us like this for a long time, and was an integral part in getting the ball rolling which in turn got the forum started. :)
Yes, the study you cited was flawed. Try this article as it is much more recent, cites the United Nations 1996 Demographic Yearbook published in 1998 of 86 nations, and shows that 23 of those nations have higher rates of homicide than the U.S.
http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html
Looking at the homicide figures, we again wonder about accuracy. Are "political" killings (by the government or rebels) in Northern Ireland, Egypt, Israel, Guatemala, Peru, China, and elsewhere listed as homicides, listed separately, or concealed? We must admit that the U.S. has a higher homicide rate than any Western European nation. Still, 23 nations admit to higher rates: Armenia, Bahamas, Belarus, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Sao Tome, Tajikistan, Trinidad, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Using the 1997 U.S. homicide rate of 7.3, Azerbaijan and Cuba also have higher rates. Nine nations (ten using the 1997 figures) including Russia have both higher suicide and higher homicide rates.
http://www.haciendapub.com/Images/table1.jpg
----------------------------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
Originally posted by Jim Peel
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
I'm sure the rapist would have stood politely by whilst he waited for her to take a weapon out her purse. :rolleyes:
outside looking in
5/09/02, 12:18am
gotta be quick with your piece lady. ;0
Well, so much for what you know about self defense. When one is walking through hostile territory one keeps one's hand on one's personal protection device.
Others just lay there and hope he will allow them to live when he is finished.
Which one are you?
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_protection.jpg
I also hang out at The Firing Line and Mitchschaft came to us for pointers in debating. I think he held his own for a newbie. I stayed out of the fray until now as he won't develop any debating skills with others proping him up.
Feel free to drop by, lurk, or participate. All are welcome. The only rules are the General Discussion forum is for firearms issues only. The Legal and Political forum is open to most -- note I said most -- subjects. You are also expected to act as ladies and gentlemen posting to ladies and gentlemen. Y'all come now.
Justintime
5/09/02, 01:55am
You gun people are weird (cept you mitch! :D )
MitchSchaft
5/09/02, 01:57am
Muahahahaha :evileek: Culture shock, eh?
Originally posted by jimpeel
Well, so much for what you know about self defense. When one is walking through hostile territory one keeps one's hand on one's personal protection device.
Others just lay there and hope he will allow them to live when he is finished.
Which one are you?
:rofl2:
So you envision women walking about on a permanent basis with their hand on their weapon in their purse/ pocket or a clip or whatever you want whenever outdoors? Or whenever indoors for that matter? That would be lovely sleeping with a gun taped to my hand in case of home invasion or break-in when my kids crawl into bed. Or having my hand on my gun while walking to the corner store, great. Maybe I could get one permanently attached to my hand, then I'd always be safe. :rolleyes:
MitchSchaft
5/09/02, 08:35am
Nice exaduration. Keep it up.
*peepwall* Why, is there another stream of paranoid fearmongering on it's way? :eek:
Gato_Solo
5/09/02, 09:11am
I heard that the Canadians are plotting a hostile take-over of the US... :D ...and you can't tell who's Canadian or not until they say 'aboot', or end their sentence with 'eh'... :D
and by the way I don't know anything aboot any plot formed by Canada for next August... :eek6: oops I mean I don't know anything aboot any plot by Canada.
You believe me, eh? :eek12:
Gato_Solo
5/09/02, 11:30am
Sorry, but you'll have to post that in Quebecois as well, eh. :D
BTW...Where's your pet beaver? :D :D :D
Je ne suis pas conscient de quelque conspiration Canadien pour faire un coup d'Etas-Unis.
C'est vraiment, vraiment vrai! :eek6: :D
My pet beaver is sitting in my lap at the moment ;)
edit:As I'm not a Quebecer, it's not perfect, I'm sure equinoxe3D could do a much better job. But the main point is there LOL[/siz]
Justintime
5/09/02, 11:54am
can i pet your beaver? pretty please?? :)
Ok, but I gotta warn you, they bite! :D
Gato_Solo
5/09/02, 12:14pm
You've also got to get past the houseboy first... ;)
Originally posted by Gato_Solo
You've also got to get past the houseboy first... ;)
;) :rofl2:
You gun people are weirdIf being weird means taking responsibility for my own self preservation -- rather than calling armed hired guns to do it for me -- then I stand guilty as charged.
Conversely, I find it weird that people will place their faith in an obscure person miles away to come to their aid as quickly as a perpetrator can complete his nefarious task.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/_fightback.jpg
So you envision women walking about on a permanent basis with their hand on their weapon in their purse/ pocket or a clip or whatever you want whenever outdoors? Or whenever indoors for that matter? That would be lovely sleeping with a gun taped to my hand in case of home invasion or break-in when my kids crawl into bed. Or having my hand on my gun while walking to the corner store, great. Maybe I could get one permanently attached to my hand, then I'd always be safe. [/quote]Yhis is the typical, emotion based, wildly exaggerated, hyperbole that we in the pro-firearms faction have come to expect from the Liberal anti-firearms faction. Nothing based on fact. Nothing based on cognizant thought. Just wild exaggerations taken to the farthest extremes possible.
When will you be bringing up the "So should everyone be allowed to have a nuclear weapon?" argument?
Or how about "Should we send our Kindergarteners to school armed to the teeth?"
In answer to your specious interrogatories and condescending speculations: No, No, No, No, and No in that order.
Note that I said that one should be prepared when one is in known hostile territory. One should also be eternally vigilant of their surroundings regardless of how safe it may seem.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/_beingprey.jpg
L. Summerton
So you envision women walking about on a permanent basis with their hand on their weapon in their purse/ pocket or a clip or whatever you want whenever outdoors? Or whenever indoors for that matter? That would be lovely sleeping with a gun taped to my hand in case of home invasion or break-in when my kids crawl into bed. Or having my hand on my gun while walking to the corner store, great. Maybe I could get one permanently attached to my hand, then I'd always be safe. [/quote]Yhis is the typical, emotion based, wildly exaggerated, hyperbole that we in the pro-firearms faction have come to expect from the Liberal anti-firearms faction. Nothing based on fact. Nothing based on cognizant thought. Just wild exaggerations taken to the farthest extremes possible.
When will you be bringing up the "So should everyone be allowed to have a nuclear weapon?" argument?
Or how about "Should we send our Kindergarteners to school armed to the teeth?"
In answer to your specious interrogatories and condescending speculations: No, No, No, No, and No in that order.
Note that I said that one should be prepared when one is in known hostile territory. One should also be eternally vigilant of their surroundings regardless of how safe it may seem.
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/_beingprey.jpg
Originally posted by jimpeel
Note that I said that one should be prepared when one is in known hostile territory. One should also be eternally vigilant of their surroundings regardless of how safe it may seem.
:eek:
Are your paranoid ?
I heard that the Canadians are plotting a hostile take-over of the US... No chance of that. The Canadians have C-68 to keep them safe and warm. That "common sense" legislation -- passed because of lies and exaggerations by the anti-firearms faction -- should make us safe against any invasion by Canada.
Jim, I am a great one for bashing Canada as anyone here can tell you, good fun that, go ahead and do your best but could I ask that you not insult our peacekeepers, they are still a sensitive subject up here, considering their lowered numbers at the moment. :(
L. Summerton
DELETED BY JIMPEEL
Not at all, deeply ashamed as a matter of fact. :(
As well all Canadians should be. I am going to edit out the offending posts as you seem a decent person. No more rubbing noses in that stinking pile from me.
J
Are your paranoid ? No. The President of the United States has stated that all Americans should be vigilant and prepared. I am both; even without marching orders from my President.
Gato_Solo
5/09/02, 03:18pm
jimpeel...I think you mis-read my posts dealing with the Canadian take-over. ;) Please take this extremely seriously. You can't pick a Canadian out of a crowd of US citizens by sight. PLUS our border with Canada is completely undefended... :eek: I assure you...the Canadians are coming... :D
We have already infiltrated. It is too late for you and your countrymen. Soon we shall be victorious, prepare to say eh!!! :headbang:
:rofl2:
MitchSchaft
5/09/02, 06:56pm
Muahahaha. :cwmdie:
Just to the gun people using Australia as a sample of gun control laws not working.
We had an incident here you may of heard of at the very bottom of Australia (I think it still holds the record of the biggest single massacre by one man with a gun) were a mental patiant murdered 32 people with an automatic rifle.
Now you might say that all the more reason for people to carry weapons to stop this kind of thing.
But this was beyond that. I don't think that any mature person in the country smiled that afternoon.
And we decided as a county that this should never happen again, and that are what our gun laws are based around, not statistical crime.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 06:04pm
Now matter how illegal guns are, that mentally deranged psychopath would've been able to get ahold of that automatic rifle if he wanted to.
32 people died and not 1 person on site had a firearm to retaliate with. That's what we're talking about here, bro.
Yeah...and a real insane guy can also make a nuclear bomb and blow a hole city, if he really wants to.
We are talking about no guns, it is very possible that if guns were completely illegal, that situation would have never happened...
Now you're saying that if one person would have had a gun in that moment the number of deaths would be 1, if no guns were available, the number would have been 0 (zero), and, if i understood right, by that time, guns were legal, and that didn't make much of a difference.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 06:30pm
It's not possible to irradicate guns. And it's not my fault that nobody there exercised their right to bare arms.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 06:32pm
Yeah...and a real insane guy can also make a nuclear bomb and blow a hole city, if he really wants to
Don't be surprised when that happens here in America shortly. Nuclear bombs are very illegal in this country. But the folks over in the middle east don't seem to care about that right now.
I already knew that, but i guess that you will feel better if you had a nuclear bomb in your house (to protect yourself).
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 06:37pm
Now that's completely irrational:D. How would I be protecting myself when I blow up half the city :headbang:
I was being sarcastic :D :D
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 07:42pm
Muahahaha :medieval:
Rotten Rob
5/10/02, 07:46pm
Mitch,
You challenged me to make an argument for banning guns. Sorry, but as a gun owner, that ain't my schtick. (That should have been obvious once you discovered that I hang around gun sites that you also frequent.) If you want to fight such bans - more power to you. You won't find me in your way. I have a feeling you won't find many "banners" to bash, though - they are extremists, and a minority.
HOWEVER... If you plan to debate on gun control measures, and the logic behind them - you and I may indeed lock horns. I should warn you, do not take confidence in the fact that I was not born in the United States. If time spent living 'IN' the U.S. is your measure of how well a person understands freedom, liberties and rights - then I'd wager I am more qualified than you. I've spent more time living in these states than anyone referring to me as 'dude.' ;) Trust me, daddy-o, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on freedom - and sometimes, being denied certain rights can teach you an awful lot about them.
Don't apologize for being a newbie to the firearms debate - you have to start somewhere. And being new certainly doesn't mean you are new to thinking, or new to having valid opinions. Conversely, being an old hand at this debate is no guarantee that you are any good at it - just look at jimpeel.
To the Canadian advance expeditionary force that will be first in enemy territory, I give this advice Bring Beer! )
To jimpeel You are still citing extremely inaccurate sources, when you point to the U.N. Demographics. First off, those same homocide studies have been updated, as of Feb., 2002 - I suggest you get the latest release (don't worry - your position isn't harmed too much by the latest figures). Second, once you have the latest & greatest from the U.N. studies - toss them in the trash. They are still flawed beyond repair.
A few queries for you, Mr. Peel...
1 - In your own words, please explain why there is a '0' stat listed for Egypt on that accurate, scientific chart you posted? (Warning, don't parrot the NRA lobbyist person you quoted along with that chart, or it will turn around and bite you.)
2 - Exactly how many assisted euthanasias are included as 'homocide' for both U.S. and Mexico statistics?
3 - What is the source the U.N. studies team used for obtaining it's homocide numbers for Mexico in your posted chart, and how was that source later changed in subsequent studies? [Clue reviewing the hospital admission records from 6 major cities, and the police records from a mere 18 cities - then "extrapolating" from that data for a whole country, is pretty shoddy.]
Finally - what point was that chart supposed to support? If it was simply "more death in Mexico than in U.S.," fine. If that chart was to support any contentions regarding guns, self defense or the effectiveness of laws - please explain how?
- RR
Freedom in the US: you can't seel drugs, you can't clone people, you must pay taxes.......
Complete freedom should guarantee you to be able to do whatever you want, so you're actually under control, is the same as in other countries, i don't see why you just can't live without guns.
It would be great that some murdered kid at a school could come here and tell us his opinion about the subject.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 08:04pm
Sorry, but as a gun owner, that ain't my schtick
Good, I hate arguing:D. How long have you lived in the US? I'm all of 23-years-old. But, I'm curious as to how you feel on the subject since you're a gun owner yourself. Or were you just arguing against me because you dont' like seeing people argue against the ban. That's the only way I can think of to arguing against these folks. Got any better ideas?
That group may be a minority and extremist, but take a look at California, New York, Chicago and other similar states. Guns are practically banned there. And if a minority group can play such a large role against my 2ndA, then I'd hate to see them if they were the majority.
Give a maniac a weapon and by all means he will use it.
It doesn't matter what kind, i can tell you, give him a bomb, and he will use it, give him a gun, and he will use it, give him a knife and he will use it, give him a stone....and he will use it too.
There will always be insane people, but what really matters are the ways they can use to kill.
AAARGH I had thought I'd killed this thread. :P :laugh:
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 08:15pm
i don't see why you just can't live without guns
No kidding :cool:
Not only is it a hobby like this computer I'm sitting at, but it's a means of self-defense to keep the crazy fuckers who use them for the wrong reasons at bay. I like to hunt as well. Can't hunt birds/rabbits with rocks. (not me anyway). Target shooting, clays, trap, skeet, paper targets. If people didn't hurt other people on purpose, then I wouldn't need 'em for selfdefense. Just for fun.
As far as freedoms are concerned, read our bill of rights. Then compare the freedoms that it guarantees to other countries. I'm not talking about piddly things like doing drugs or whatever. People do those anyway. (which makes them criminals ?( ) Our Constitution guarantees us certain rights. There will always be some left winged liberal(:D) to come along and try to misinterpret what is written in our Constitution and take away those freedoms. Might not seem like a big deal until those freedoms are taken away. Which is what is happening slowly, daybyday over here.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 08:18pm
There will always be insane people, but what really matters are the ways they can use to kill.
That's how I view it also. The only difference is I also believe that guns are here to stay. People know the concept of guns and how to make them, so they will not go away. The only way to counter that is to fight fire with fire.
Rotten Rob
5/10/02, 08:27pm
Mitch,
You stated, "And it's not my fault that nobody there exercised their right to bare arms."
I have a question for you. In your opinion, does every person alive on earth have a "right to bare arms?"
The situation to which you referred was in Australia, I believe? I don't know what the specifics are regarding that situation. Maybe they were prohibited from having arms in that area? Were the unfortunates in that situation allowed to wear bullet-proof vests and body armor? Have any idea why they weren't all doing so?
I noticed you mentioning the 2nd Amendment in previous posts. You do understand that the 2nd Amendment only PROHIBITS things, and doesn't GRANT things, right? It certainly doesn't grant a right. However, it refers to a right to bear arms, as if such a right seems to already exist - for some reason. Do you have any idea where that "right" came from? Any opinions on that?
[If you sense that I'm leading you down an already well-worn path, you are correct. I just want to make sure you don't already have a bunch of crap stuffed in your head as you venture forth into this debate...]
RR
Rotten Rob
5/10/02, 09:03pm
Uh oh :)
Just an observation here. I just read "There will always be some left winged liberal() to come along and try to misinterpret what is written in our Constitution and take away those freedoms."
That raises a ton of red flags. I know it's hard, but try to resist the urge to toss around stereotypical misnomers like "Liberal; Socialist; Leftist; Democrat; Panzies; Clintonistas; Soccer-Momish; bleeding-heart; etc." It doesn't strengthen any point you are trying to make - and it DOES alienate some people. That's not a good thing.
People hate to be pigeon-holed into certain catagories. And all of the above labels aren't absolute. I know several democratic, liberal soccer moms that shoot at my club, and they would hate to lose their guns. Try not to alienate. Just educate, instead.
Of course, you don't have to listen to me - and I don't mean to come off as a preacher. But I wish to keep my guns, so I'm working in my self-interest. Think about the advice I give.
The PEOPLE that work toward solutions to gun crime ... and gun accidents ... and gun suicides ... are just people. They aren't possessed by demons. They aren't part of a plot to subjugate humanity to their whims. They aren't whispering behind closed doors, while they devise new and ominous ways to piss us gun owners off. They are just people, and they are just struggling to find and implement solutions.
Try to remember that. Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled. Discuss with them their motives and thoughts, instead of attack them - or belittle them. Trust me, you'll serve the interests of gun owners much more effectively that way. Take it from this gun owner. I'm also one of "them."
- RR
Oh, in answer to your question... I've easily spent more than 50 years total in this country. Now a question for you. Are you aware that the "Founding Fathers" had severe opposition when they proposed the Constitution? Are you aware the first 10 Articles (Bill of Rights) were NOT unanimously approved...and took several years of pushing and palm-greasing just to get the 3/4 approval needed to pass? It took more than a CENTURY to get all states to ratify them. Ask jimpeel if it's just concidence that the first 10 Amendments weren't really ratified by ALL states until 1939 - the very same year a final decision was made in supreme court about the 2nd Amendment refering ONLY to arms for the militias.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 10:39pm
He said that guns weren't illegal at the time in Australia. If they were allowed to carry them, they should have been carrying.
I have a question for you. In your opinion, does every person alive on earth have a "right to bare arms?"
According their laws of their land not everyone does. But ours says we do. But, I don't know how much you're into the Bible, but I'm a big believer in Jesus, so my true answer would be yes.
You do understand that the 2nd Amendment only PROHIBITS things, and doesn't GRANT things, right?
I'm a little confused as to what you mean by that. It clearly states we have the right to bare arms. Nothing more nothing less. It doesn't prohibit anything. I can't help that lawmakers don't see it that way. Then again, I believe our right came straight from the Bible.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 10:40pm
but try to resist the urge to toss around stereotypical
Hey, it's fun:D
People call me a gun nut, but I'm not a nut, so I know what you mean:).
They aren't possessed by demons.
I wouldn't doubt that;).
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 10:45pm
the very same year a final decision was made in supreme court about the 2nd Amendment refering ONLY to arms for the militias
Like you said, they're just people, too. I happen to believe their final decision is wrong.
Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled.
That's what I try to do. Which is why I posted the statistics. Made sence to me. You have any pointers? I'm a little confused as to your stand on the subject.
Originally posted by MitchSchaft
You have any pointers? I'm a little confused as to your stand on the subject.
It's pretty obvious. He has no point. He is one of those strange beings that thinks complete peace is attainable.
I would like to add my view. Complete peace is complete stillness, which is death.... the same as getting shot to death by someone who has a head on their shoulders.
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 11:30pm
He's confusing the hell outta me, but I guess he knew that.
Rotten Rob
5/10/02, 11:38pm
Glok,
Care to explain how you came to that cornball conclusion about complete peace? Or perhaps you were referring to a different poster.
Mitch,
As I said ---> "Try to remember that. Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled. Discuss with them their motives and thoughts, instead of attack them - or belittle them. Trust me, you'll serve the interests of gun owners much more effectively that way."
As for the "rights" thing, the 2nd Amendment states "...shall not be infringed." It's saying something "shall not" be done. It's a prohibition. Who is being prohibited from doing what? Think about it. I've looked for the word "Grant" in there, and I can't find it. If I've missed it, please point it out for me.
As for the right to firearms being granted in the bible - PLEASE DO TELL! If this is true, I'd have a whole new clip of ammo at my disposal - pardon the pun. Any passages you can give would be appreciated. Oh, I'd also need to know which bible - since these days, there are about a dozen completely conflicting versions floating around.
Best to you,
- RR
MitchSchaft
5/10/02, 11:54pm
Well, the Bible doesn't say anything about firearms per say. I guess I should've mentioned I was talking about selfdefense/deadly force. Which you could bring firearms into that equation in this day and age. KJV by the
way. If you don't know what KJV is, then don't bother asking me anymore Bible questions;). And don't ask me to look the passages up for you because that's a whole nother story.
It's saying something "shall not" be done. It's a prohibition. Who is being prohibited from doing what?
Is that supposed to be a joke, man? Because it's a very bad one:D. It says you "shall not" take my guns away, sir. That is prohibitive of the government to take my guns away. It does not prohibit me in any way. Your statement really confuses me. Shall not be infringed says nobody in this country shall take my right to bear arms.
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING
NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A
FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE
PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
I could see you arguing about what their definition of what a well regulated milia is, but you seriously need to explain to me what you mean by your statement about the "shall not" deal. ?( . If it's because you didn't grow up in America and don't understand what shall not means, that's fine. But you should tell me that then. Your statement scares the hell outta me:D
Grant? The Bill of Rights is one big (understood) GRANT. Where are you coming from, man?
Originally posted by Rotten Rob
Glok,
Care to explain how you came to that cornball conclusion about complete peace? Or perhaps you were referring to a different poster.
No, I was not referring to a different poster.
What do you think complete peace is?? How can it be anything but the final rest, the end of days, or the end of humanity and life. Don't even bother to argue that we can attain complete peace in life when ALL of the animals kill every day just to stay alive. Us with our guns are nothing. We cannot even make a dent in the incredible violence that is life.
You care about guns? WHO CARES!!! Guns will not make a dent in the suffering that is Life.
MitchSchaft
5/11/02, 12:09am
Life sucks!:D
Rotten Rob
5/11/02, 02:51pm
Glok -
He is one of those strange beings that thinks complete peace is attainable.Since you seem to have skipped right by my question, I'll ask it again: How did you come to this cornball conclusion? What, exactly, is it that I think - and what leads you to believe this?
Guns will not make a dent in the suffering that is Life.I assume then, that you agree there is no reason to ban them?
Sorry if I'm just not following you - but it's hard for me to wax philosophic with you when I'm not partaking of the same drugs :) This whole 'total peace is impossible' musing sounds neeto and all - but I never mentioned the word 'peace.' Nor did I imply it. See why I thought you were speaking to someone else?
Mitch -
If you don't know what KJV is, then don't bother asking me anymore Bible questionsWell, at least that narrows it down to one of the few King James versions. And don't ask me to look the passages up for you because that's a whole nother story.I wouldn't ask you to look up something that didn't exist - that would be a cruel practical joke ;)
That is prohibitive of the government to take my guns away.Bingo! You DO understand! I was beginning to have my doubts for a moment. The 2nd Amendment does indeed prohibit the federal government from disarming you. Why would the authors want to restrict the "government" in this way? Having just broken free of an oppressive government at great cost (Britain), they were taking steps to prevent this new government from gaining that same power.
Since you seem to understand that concept, I'd like to re-ask the same question that you appear to have missed:I noticed you mentioning the 2nd Amendment in previous posts. You do understand that the 2nd Amendment only PROHIBITS things, and doesn't GRANT things, right? It certainly doesn't grant a right. However, it refers to a right to bear arms, as if such a right seems to already exist - for some reason. Do you have any idea where that "right" came from? Any opinions on that?Do you have any idea where that "right to keep and bear arms" came from? I'm referring to the one mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
If it's because you didn't grow up in America and don't understand what shall not means, that's fine. But you should tell me that then.I thought we already covered this. I've spent over 50 years "growing up" in America. Compared to um... how many years for you, again? I have a perfect understanding of the words "shall not," as they are used in Article II of the Constitutional Amendments, as proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, persuant to the 5th Article of the original Constitution. I was questioning YOUR understanding :)
You have demonstrated that you understand the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition. Good.
Since you quoted the 2nd Amendment, you can read for yourself that it refers to some already existing right to keep and bear arms. I just want to know your opinions on where that right may have come from - if you have any.
And don't be so defensive about my questioning you. You said you wanted to participate in such debates - I'm just watching out for my interests as a gun owner. We already have enough crack-pot pro-gun "debaters" out there doing more harm to our rights than good. Sorry if I come off as a little harsh.
- RR
MitchSchaft
5/11/02, 03:07pm
Man, thanks for explaining yourself because I was really confused for a minute:). I thought you were trying to say it was prohibitive of us. But now I know what you're saying! I'm not gettin' defensive I was really confused.
About the Bible quotes, I meant I wasn't gonna dig up the selfdefense deals, not firearms. I know it says nothing about firearms because firearms didn't exist 2500-2000 years ago. I didn't know there was more than one verion of KJV. I know there's the NKJV, but that's not the same in my opinion. Some jackass just thought they would throw the name KJV to make people feel better or something.
Do you have any idea where that "right to keep and bear arms" came from? I'm referring to the one mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
No, I don't know where the right to bare arms came from before the 2nd amendment. Next time try not to confuse me so much:D
freako104
5/26/02, 11:11pm
i know im a little late but heres my stand. i am anti gun but ill admit im a hypocrite in that i belive if used correctly and if parents do their damn jobs, there will be no reason to fear guns and i would have one if my future wife or gf would let me. however it would be in a placew only she and i knew and i would teach my kids about it. and for gods sake parents do your jobs!! television is not a babysitter. i will admit in todays day men and women are workign and i think its great but we need someone to watch our kids. if someone can teach these children some morals and values maybe theres less of a chance of this crap happening. i will still say id like some stricter gun laws but moreover i want parents in childrens lives. its time parents did what was roight and teach kids.
MitchSchaft
5/27/02, 12:25am
You don't sound anti-gun you sound in between or confused. And we don't need stricter laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have, which is a shitload. And you are correct about the parenting deal.
freako104
5/27/02, 10:04pm
put it this way. we need to enforce them but i say we should do background checks on the person. and i am anti gun to an extent. i dont see why with all the technology and how far weve come as humans we still make weapons rather than peace but i can understand them for hunting and self defense. and im glad you agree with me on the parents thing.
MitchSchaft
5/27/02, 10:39pm
Originally posted by freako104
put it this way. we need to enforce them but i say we should do background checks on the person. and i am anti gun to an extent. i dont see why with all the technology and how far weve come as humans we still make weapons rather than peace but i can understand them for hunting and self defense. and im glad you agree with me on the parents thing.
We do background checks. What do you mean by that? And as far as the peace thing is concerned, it's human nature. There is no way around it, in any shape or form. This is not a fantasy la-la land. There are people out there that are mean, destructive beasts that will do whatever they can to destroy people for reasons as stupid as fun or $5. And I will do my best to keep them from destroying me or my family.
Rotten Rob
5/28/02, 12:52pm
We do background checks.This is one of those laws we already have that you say needs to be enforced. Background checks need to be standardized across the nation, throughout all 50 states. Right now, several different (and incompatible) systems and rules are used. A buyer will be checked only at licensed gun dealers, but not necessarily at gun shows - and certainly not at the garage sale down the street. And if the background check isn't completed in a few days, the dealer can sell the firearm anyway. It's still a joke, really.
There are people out there that are mean, destructive beasts that will do whatever they can to destroy people for reasons as stupid as fun or $5. ...for fun, or $5, or for cutting them off on the road, or for cheating on them, or for looking at them the wrong way in a bar, or for giving them a bad grade in school, or for following a different religeon ...
In regard to "the peace thing" you said "it's human nature?" I don't follow you. Are you saying desiring peace is part of human nature? Or are you saying being a destructive beast is part of human nature?
Congrats on getting hitched, by the way! Another one bites the dust, eh? :)
- RR
freako104
5/28/02, 03:47pm
i dont know that its human nature. and i agree ill protect my family and friends from people who would hurt them in any way shape or form. background checks?? if there were background checks do you really think some of those people with guns would ave them?? people with pyschological problems are able to buy guns and im not sure that they should have them. ill admit that throughout history, humans have engaged in violence and wars however i believe that it is trying to change but some people wont change fro whatever reason.
MitchSchaft
5/28/02, 06:25pm
Death & destruction and wanting to obtain peace are human nature. That's how people always have and always will be. Technology has nothing to do with human emotion.
Every licensed dealer in the US is required to do a background check according to Federal law. Only private sellers don't have to. Like if I we were neighbors and you wanted to buy one of my rifles and I wanted to get rid of it. That's what most people seem to be worried about. Like, the private sellers at gunshows.
what is the proportion of sales from licenced dealers to private sales? once a gun goes into private sales how is it tracked or safe ownership ensured?
MitchSchaft
5/28/02, 07:36pm
That's what everyone's talking about these days. Once it leaves the dealer's hands then it's basically free reign. And some states make you register your weapons. But that doesn't go well with most people. It basically gives the government the ability to confiscate your guns whenever they would want to. That's another dead end street. Either way, people are gonna get ahold of them. You can't keep track of everybody/everything in that way.
Rotten Rob
5/29/02, 04:13am
Death & destruction and wanting to obtain peace are human nature. That's how people always have and always will be. Progression toward a state of peace is natural, yes. "Death & Destruction" is an aberration against humanity - not part of human nature. I guess we disagree.
You can't claim it's part of our 'nature' to be destructive when the vast majority of our species throughout the ages have proven to be just the opposite. And you certainly can not predict that we "always will be" based upon the actions of a very small percentage of our species throughout history.
And some states make you register your weapons. But that doesn't go well with most people.Actually, that doesn't go well with the minority - us gun owners. The majority would prefer a comprehensive registration scheme similar to that used for motor vehicles. Every year, registration schemes are gaining popularity too.It basically gives the government the ability to confiscate your guns whenever they would want to.No, it gives the government, you and I, a fairly accurate idea of gun ownership, and a way to track it. The government already has the ability to confiscate firearms whenever it wants to - and registration, contrary to popular propaganda, does nothing to 'enable' this. Either way, people are gonna get ahold of them. You can't keep track of everybody/everything in that way. There will always be thefts of firearms, true. Registering a firearm won't prevent a thief from taking it. But the vast majority of firearms used in crimes are not stolen property. They are guns bought through private sales or through unlicensed resellers. Registration would indeed put an end to that, since every owner could then be required to meet the background and licensing criteria.
So, while you are correct in saying you can't keep track of everything (just like with auto registration), you can certainly keep track of almost everything - especially transactions of firearms to people that shouldn't have them.
Rob
MitchSchaft
5/29/02, 08:36am
You win, Rob.
Rotten Rob
5/29/02, 12:58pm
Mitch,
I win? Maybe a battle or two, but not the war. Can't have victory while there are still folks wanting to totally ban firearms without justification.
As for the 'human nature' argument you introduced, there is nothing to win there. It just saddened me to see you display such a defeatist attitude, with your comments about death and destruction being normal, and humanity never having peace. These don't sound like the words of a newlywed with a good home and a child on the way. I can only imagine what you have lived through to leave you with such a harsh and skewed view of human nature. As you said, this isn't la-la fantasy land, and we may never have perfect peace, but the struggle toward these things is what makes us human. Those who strive to make this world a better place shouldn't be dismissed with the wave of a pessimistic hand.
- RR
MitchSchaft
5/29/02, 06:07pm
I'm confused as to your stance on just about every issue you bring up. So, to me, it's like beating a brick wall.
*dusts feet off and walks away*
freako104
5/29/02, 10:17pm
rob i do agree with you. however mitchshafy also made some good points about protecting ones family so i agree to that. since i dont own any guns i dont know all the laws so thanx for clearing some of them up guys. as afar as the guns being free reign, can i ask how they are free reign if the person buying them should be the only person who uses it?(unless teaching about the gun or hunting etcetra) the gov't can repossess any guns at any time as far as to my knowledge. and humaity has changed its emotions. jsut a few are still violent but for the msot part id say weve come a long way.
MitchSchaft
5/29/02, 11:44pm
can i ask how they are free reign if the person buying them should be the only person who uses itunless teaching about the gun or hunting etcetra) the gov't can repossess any guns at any time as far as to my knowledge
What I meant by free reign is the government does not have control over what happens to them after they leave a licensed dealer. And the gov't cannot reposses firearms unless you've become convicted of a crime. You can find that in the 2nd Ammendment.
Rotten Rob
5/30/02, 02:37am
can i ask how they are free reign if the person buying them should be the only person who uses itunless teaching about the gun or hunting etcetra) the gov't can repossess any guns at any time as far as to my knowledge.What Mitch was saying is that once guns are initially sold by a licensed dealer, they can then be resold to another person without going through government required background checks, etc. This essentially makes background checks useless, and Mitch is correct - this issue is one that is being rigorously debated now.
Our government can confiscate firearms if you have comitted crimes wherein the punishment specifies that you may not possess firearms. Being convicted of other crimes, such as petty vandalism, does not allow confiscation. Firearms may also be confiscated for other reasons, such as not being mentally capable of, or old enough to possess them. If we someday desire, as a society, that firearms should be prohibited, we need only to pass laws making them illegal - and that is all our government needs to "be able to confiscate" them. By the way - there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that addresses any of this. The 2nd Amendment only prevents our federal government from disarming the regulated Militia. This will remain so until the 63 year old ruling of the highest court in the land is reversed.
Mitch says:I'm confused as to your stance on just about every issue you bring up.Perhaps that's because I haven't taken "stances." I simply read what people post, and if I spot obvious errors - I correct them. I also haven't "brought up" any issues. I keep things simple by only responding to the issues others have already raised.
I think you understand perfectly well everything I've said. If you need anything clarified, however, just let me know and I'll do my best.
- RR
MitchSchaft
5/30/02, 01:36pm
No, I do not need clarification as to what you stand for. Like I said, you won.
Rotten Rob
5/30/02, 03:23pm
Cool - what did I win? :gun5:
*holsters his guns and strolls away*
- RR
freako104
5/31/02, 03:06am
thanx for clearing that up. you win the argument and your prize is $10,000,000!! jk
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.